ML20236B329
| ML20236B329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/08/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mcclure J SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903210027 | |
| Download: ML20236B329 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ _ .
' 7y C 9++%<,?\
! n UNITED STATES
{/ ,1 -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o,
%, * ,o',g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20566 CHAIRMAN March 8, 1989 The Honorable James A. McClure Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McClure:
The Commission appreciates the support you expressed in your February 3, 1989. letter for our rulemaking efforts on nuclear power plant design standardization and one-step licensing. I believe standardization shows great promise as a way to enhance safety and facilitate a licensing process in which the bulk of safety and environmental issues concerning a given plant are resolved before construction of the plant begins.
M-In your lettsc, you also express your concern that the proposed rule process." "does l!Ntic to improve upon the existing two-step licensing We f ully recognize the advantages of a licensing process in which as few safety and environmental issues as possible are left to the end of the process to be resolved.
Whatever may have seemed to be the advantages of a two-step process in the early years of nuclear power plant licensing, nuclear technology is developed enough now, and the Commission has enough experience in regulating it, to permit the definitive findings to be made before construction. The Commission's aim is to preserve the integrity of the licensing process while adding a measure of nuclearof power stability and predictability for the next generation plants.
The Commission now has before it a draft final rule prepared by -
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff after its con-sideration of the public comments received on the proposed rule.
The draft, together with a draft response to the comments, is contained 1989. A copy in SECY-89-036, which was made public on February 22, ,
of this paper is enclosed. The draft final rule, like the proposed rule issued last August, does in fact provide for combined construction permits and operating licenses and limits the issues that may be considered in any hearing held at the end of the licensing process. The draft final rule goes further than the proposed rule, though, in limiting those issues.
Under the draft final rule, the only issues that can be considered -
in a hearing af ter construction are issues of whether the plant has been built in conformity with the license, and even within this category, findings that rest solely on the results of tests and inspections are exempt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C.
554(a)(3).
8903210027 890308 PDR COMMS NRCC f >1 CORRESPONDENCE PDC I g ___ _ _ _ _ . _ - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^~ ~ ~ ~~
~
i The Commission is carefully reviewing the content of the draft final rule.
You may be assured that we shall make every effort to realize the goals of standardization, to provide for full and public debate before construction rather than after, and to accord the due. resolutions arrived at in that debate the finality they are We shall, in addition, identify to Congress legislative changes we believe are needed after the final rule is issued.
Sincerely, g W. /A.
Lando W. Ze , Jr
Enclosure:
SECY-89-036 cc: Senator J. Bennett Johnston
)
i 4
6 i
_y
, , ,, . e,- c--u.
mos u. cao e,fucs?
MamaO ha85E O E ose 1";"a",,""s"l=, *"' "
O'eZ'4 %"L".'!s* g C,, "
@E545 Jones o moCatstLLEA w. wtIf vtaGessee 5l5@E~^
WafCN WsCosemitt. EtWFtfCET Tinited Etates 5tnatt o aEs a c'w sat
=====Is"co : == ,
ENERGY A N L RESOURCES Waswinotose. DC 20510-6150 February 3, 1989 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
Over the past several Congresses, Natural Resources has devoted a great deal of its time to thethe Committee on Energy an resolution of the myriad of issues inhibiting the introduction of a next generation of nuclear power plants in this country. These activities compact included revamping of the low-level radioactive waste legislation, renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, restructuring-of the high-level nuclear waste disposal program, the uruium mining and uranium enrichment industries.andThe revitalization Committee of has also begun to take a closer look at the advanced reactor research program within the Department of Energy, and I am quite certain that we will incoming be involved in this issue once again as we begin dialogue with the administration.
Beyond what the Committee has accomplished, I have taken a personal Commission.interest in several areas of particular c'oncern to the One area has been emergency planning, supported your efforts to revise the emergency planning regulations soin which I strongly as to be more consistent with the original intent of Congress.
I corrmend you for the success of these efforts. Another area was the role of the Federal emergency planning,Emergency Management Agency with respect to White House issued an Executive Order dealing with this matteSwhich w ..
certification aware, of standardized nuclear power plantAsdesigns.Cne you are re I was prepared last year to offer an amendment to the NRC Authori.zation bill that would have given the NRC definitive authority to undertake licensing the necessary of pre-approved plant regulatory designs.revisions to allow for one-step e the final amendment diluted from its arriginal form,Unfortunately, not only was never er. acted into law. but the bill was ,
Therefore, ur.dertaken the task of licensing reform withoutICongressional directive, am delighted to see that the Co I commend endeavor. However, the Commission for its . leadershipfar-reaching in thisusing existing stat extreme concern thatI the would be less than honest if I did not express my upon the existing two-step licensing process. final proposed rule does little to impro A goal of your rulemaking was to combine the construction permit and operating license khChObb y
g __ g . . _ .
steps the and raise process. the threshold for consideration of issues at the end o9 desirable ends.However, your proposed rulemaking does not achieve these in-its present form may be more harmful than beneficial to the fu of nuclear power in this country.
industry as a significant improvement over the current licensingIf the process, undertake the licensing of another nuclear project.there Utilities simply will be no cannot and will not commit capital for a nuclear power facility unless they have some soundly based assurances that the licensing process will' proceed in an orderly and timely manner.
its proposed rulemaking and determine whether the rule sa in the formulation of the rulemaking. stated intent and whether or authorities are needed -to achieve your policy objectives,If additional statutory my assistance in seeking their timely enactment into law. then I offer I look forward to working with you further on this vital matter.
Sincerely,
(
amesLA? fl0$.
A. Ml::CfuJ -
- anking Minority Member -
cc:
Commissioner Thomas Roberts Commissioner Kenneth Carr !
Commissioner Kenneth Rogers .
Commissioner James Curtiss 2.
~
6 t
. 1 I
$2ruo JV %,
, f
. RULEMAKING ISSUE February 2, 1989 (Affirmation) secy_gg_o3s For: The Commissioners i From: William C. Parler General Counsel
Subject:
RULEMAKING ON EARLY SITE PERMITS, DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS, AND COMBINED LICENSES
Purpose:
.To discuss'briefly some imporant aspects of the attached draft Federal Register notice of final rulemaking on standardization and combined licenses, and to recommend that the '
draft. notice be. published.
Background:
Nearly a year and a half ago, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization (52 Fed. Reg. 34884, Sept 15, 1987), in which the Commission announced its intent to issue procedural regulations on early site permits, design certifications, and licenses which combine construction permits and conditional operating licenses. Last summer, the Commission published for comment a proposed Part 52 containing such procedural regulations (53 Fed. Reg. 32060, August 23, 1988). There followed a 75-day comment
. period during which comments, many of them lengthy and highly detailed, were received from over 70 individuals and organizations, including industry groups, public interest groups, several state agencies, and the Department of Energy (DOE).
Discuggion: While the broad outlines, and even many of the details, of the proposed rule remain unchanged in the final rule, few sections *of
Contact:
Steven Crockett, OGC 21600 Jerry Wilson, RES 23729 "Q" _. ..
2 j
t, the proposed rule.have escaped revision in Llight of the comments. In particular, the ,
sections on technical information required in ]
applications for design certification (52.47) and, hearings after construction under a combined license (52.103) have been i thoroughly. revised.
An overview of the comments and our responses -
to them may be found under the. heading,
" Summary of the comments?and the commission's .
Responses", in Section I of.the. Supplementary l Information in the attached draft Federal i Register notice. Section* II and III of the Supplementary Informati : u.scuss the ;
comments at length. Also attached is a comparative text which provides a complete record of the differences between the proposed rule and the draft final rule.- In j the remainder of this paper we briefly ;
discuss the important differences between the- !
proposed rule and the draft final rule, and-some policy imp 1'ications a'nd potential impacts.of the draft final' rule.
First,-the draft final rule is even more stringent than the proposed rule wasHon scope of design. Section 52.47, thoroughly revised, now requires full scope for certification of " evolutionary" light-water designs (General. Electric's ABWR, Westinghouse's SP/90, and Combustion-
- Engineering's System 80+). The staff believes that this requirement will have an impact on Combustion Engineering's plans, as the staff currently understand them. This
, section also requires full scope for certification of the more advanced designs
. such as the " passive" light-water designs (General Electric's SBWR and Westinghouse's-AP600)~and the DOE-sponsored advanced designs (General Electric's PRISM, Rockwell's SAFR, and General Atomic's MHTGR), unless' . the applicant can show, through prototype testing, that the non-certified portion of the design cannot significantly affect the
, safe operation of the plant. Section 52.47 also requires prototype testing for any j design for which existing analyses and I experience do not support certification.
l
i 3 I j
The staff believes that the rule's provisions on scope will probably result in vendors' i teaming upLwith architect / engineers to bring.
full-scope designs forward for certification.
These arrangements will reduce the number of '! '
architect / engineers designing the balance of plant for a given nuclear island unless th- .;
same island'is certified with several !
balances of plant. For a full discussion of. .
the distinction between " evolutionary" and
> " advanced" designs and the requirements
- relating to scope of design and prototype testing, see Section I.1.c. of the Supplementary Information in the-draft notice.
Second, the draft final rule (section L 52. 47 (a) (1) ) , like the proposed rule, b requires applications'for certification to meet the severe accident criteria and _
I~ procedural requirements set forth in Section i j B.2. of the Commission's Severe Accident Policy ^ Statement, 50 , Fed. Reg. 32138 (August-1985).,The_ staff is currently consideri.ng
- o
- 8, ;
- ,whether this section of Part 52 should be j complemented by more detailed rules or guidance on severe accidents, and if so, what the scope and depth of..the additional. rules and/or guidance should be. A recommendation on this issue is due to the Commission later-this month, by way of a revised.SECY-88-248.
Third, the final rule makes it more difficult i to amend a design certification. The l proposed rule would have made it easier for designers to amend a design certification than for the commission to.backfit the design or the plants referencing it. In this way, the proposed rule only partly provided'means ,
for preserving the safety benefits of ) '
standardization. The final rule provides that no change, no matter who proposes it, will be made to a certification while it is in effect unless the change is necessary for compliance or adequate protection. The final
- rule thus provides greater assurance that standardization will be' preserved. However, it should be noted that this provision would prevent design improvements for safety enhancement or economic reasons unless an ,
9
4 -
exemption from the certified design were i granted to a specific plant. For a full l discussion of finality, see Section I.1.h. of the Supplementary Information in the draft notice.
Fourth, section 52.103 of the final rule is more strict than the proposed rule was on '
what issues can be raised in a hearing after construction is complete. - The final rule permits such a hearing only if the petitioner makes a crima facie showing that one or more of the acceptance criteria in the combined license have not been met, and'only if the Commission determines that the issue raised is not exempt from adjudication under the provision in the Administrative Procedure Act which exempts from adjudication decisions which rest solely on the results of inspections, tests, or elections. Any claim that the terms of the license itself are inadequate will be processed under 10 CFR 2.206.
It is my judgment that complete assurance that there will be no hearing prior to operation can be provided only by legislation. We are preparing a legislative proposal to deal with that issue. Under existing authority, I believe that, if the Commission itself retains control of the issue, as I recommend in the proposed final rule, the chances for ahy prolonged hearing prior to operation should be minimal.
Coordination: The CRGR and the ACRS have reviewed the draft
. rule, and many of their recommendations are incorporated in the attached draft notice.
The CRGR recommends issuing the rule. The ACRS' January 19, 1989 letter on the draft rule is attached. The A'CRS will review the attached draft notice on February 10, 1989.
The EDO, RES, and NRR have concurred in the draft notice.
4
ct- i l - ., 5 Recommendation: That the Commission publish the attached draft Federal Register notice as a final rule to become effective thirty day after publication. \
2/b l
William C. Parler General Counsel -
Attachments: 1
- 1. Draft Federal Register notice j of final Part 52 ,
- 2. Comparative text of Part 52
- 3. January 19, 1989 ACRS Letter This paper is scheduled for discussion at aut Open Meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 1989, i
Commissioners' comments or' consent should be provided directly ;
to the Office of the S'e'retary c by c.o.b. Tue's day, February 28, !
1989
. t j
commission Staff Office comments, if any,'should be submitted ;
to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 15, 1989, with an !
information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners'and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open ;
Meeting during the Week of March 6, 1989. Please refer to the !
appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners 4 OGC OIA GPA REGIONAL OFFICES .
EDO l ACRS ACNW ASLBP ASLAP SECY
4
- c. ,
)
s \
3
)
1
- 1 I
1 1
f
(
Attachment 1 :
e
- e
{
a
.J i
1 l
e i
4 3
2 I
l l
I .
l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and i
Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors-
! +
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- Having received and considered public comments on its proposed rule on standardization and licensing reform (53 FR 32060; August 23, 1988), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now adding a new part to its regulations which provides for issuance of early site permits, standard
, design certifications, and combined construction permits and conditional
- operating licenses for n0 clear power reactors. The new part sets out the review procedures and licensing requirements for applications for these new licenses and certifications. The final action is intended to achieve the early resolution of licensing issues and enchance the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants. This notice contains the Commission's responses to commments on the proposed rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: [30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Crockett, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, telephone (301) 492-1600, on procedural matters, or Jerry Wilson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone (301)
2 ,
. I 492-3729, on technical matters, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
l
. i 4
4
\
l 1
1
. , 1 e
I ,
l l
i 4
e e
U--_--_----_-._._.___.-_-----.__,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background The Comission has long sought nuclear power plant standardization and the enhanced safety and licensing reform which standardization could .
make possible. For more than a decade, the Commission has been adding provisions to 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 2 that allow for limited degrees of standardization, and for as many years, the Commission has been proposing legislation to Congress on the subject. The Commission was frequently
. asked by Members of Congress to what extent legislation on the subject was necessary, and in doing the analysis necessary to reply to these
, questions, the C.ommission came to believe that much of what it sought could be accomplished within its current statutory a'uthority. Thus the Commission embarked on standardization rulemaking.'
The rulemaking process has been lengthy and highly public. A year and a half ago, the Comission announced its intent to pursue standardization rulemaking in its Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization (52 FR 34884; September 15,1987). The Policy Statement set forth the principles that would guide the rulemaking and provided for a forty-five-day comment period on the Policy Statement. On October 20, 1987, about mid-way through the coment period, the NRC staff held a public workshop on the Policy Statement. During the Workshop, the staff presented a detailed outline of the proposed rule and answered preliminary questions about it. A transcript of the workshop may be found in the Comission's public document room, Gelman Building, 2120 L o
4 1
Street, NW., Washington, D.C. After a lengthy internal consideration of the commen.ts received on the Policy Statement and the outline of the rule ,
presented at the Workshop, and after public briefings of the Commission
.a nd the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the Commission issued a proposed rule (53 FR 32060; August 23,1988) and provided for a sixty-day comment period. The comment period was extended to 75 days on .
October 24, 1988 (53 FR 41609). .Mid-way through that period also, the NRC staff again held a public workshop, this time on the text of the proposed rule.1 During the second, 75-day comment period, the Commission received over 70 sets of Comments, ranging from one-page letters to multi-paged documents, one uof which included an annotated rewrite .of the whole rule. ,
The commenters included the Department of Energy (DOE), agencies and offices in the states of Connecticut, Indiana, New York, and North Carolina, the Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Council (NUMARC),
the American Nuclear Energy Council, Westinghouse, General Electric, Combustion Engineering, Stone & Webster, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), the Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE),
the Maryland Nuclear Safety Coalition, and several other utilities, 1
Given this lengthy and public process, the Commission is unpersuaded by commenters on the proposed rule who claim that the public was not given enough time to consider the rule. For example, the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) says that given the importance of the rule, one "would think that the NRC would encourage the widest posssible public participation on this rule, perhaps even by making special efforts (Footnote Continued) 4
5 corporations, public interest groups, and individuals. All the. coments may be viewed in the agency's public document room.
I l
The Comission has carefully considered all the coments 'and wishes to express its sincere appreciation of the often considerable efforts of the comenters. While the broad outlines, and even many of the details, , ;
of the proposed rule remained unchanged in the final rule, few sections of the proposed rule have escaped revision in light of the coments, and some have been thoroughly revised. In the remainder of this Section of this notice, the Commission makes two general responses to coments and then sumarizes both the comments and its responses to them. In Section II of this notice, the Comission responds to coments on the chief issues raised by the coments, While Section II often touches on the broad policies which lie behind the rule, readers wishfng to know more -
about those broad policies may consult the statement of considerations which was published with the proposed rule. In Section III, which proceeds section-by-section through the final rule, the Comission notes minor changes and offers some minor clarifications of the meaning of some provisions. For a complete record of the differences between the proposed rule and the final rule, readers may consult the comparative text of the final rule, which is available in the agency's public document room.
(FootnoteContinued) to solicit coment." That is, of course, precisely what the Comission did. j i
6 l I
1 C
Two General Responses to' Comments i
4 Before summing up the comments and the Comission's responses to them, the Commission wishes to make clear what it has not tried to do in
., this rulemaking. First, although this is an important rulemaking, it does not resolve all the safety, environmental, and political issues i
facing nuclear power. The Comission received from .all sides urgings to undertake deep reforms before issuing this final rule. The Commission 1
was, for instance, urged to streamline the hearing procedures in 10 CFR Part 2', Subpart G, restructure the utilities' liabilities under the Price-Anderson Act, decide once and for all what safety criteria shall be applied to all future plants, solve the problem of nuclear waste, turn ;
I all health and safety regulation -- not just the NRC's -- over to the ,
states reconsider whether economic considerations should ever enter into safety decisions, conduct local running referenda on whether a given nuclear power plant should be built, and have Congress directly review designs. In sum, the Commission was urged to do ever thing before it did anything.
However, the Commission has stuck to the simple aim of providing procedures for the standardization of nuclear power plants and more generally for the early resolution of safety and environmental issues in licensing proceedings. The Commission has declined to tie the fate of this rulemaking to the progress of the agency's many other ongoing efforts, such as revision of the agency's hearing procedures, implementation of the Policy Statement on Safety Goals (51 FR 30028; August 21,1986), development of techniques of analysis of risk ano cost,
_= -- - _ _ _ - . _
7 and preparation for the licensing of a high-level waste repository. 'The final rule necessarily touches on' substance' whenever it ' sets forth:
requirements for the technical content of applications for early site ,
pemits, design certifications, or combined licenses, or discusses the applicability of existing' standards to new designs and new situations.
But even here, the Comission has. with very few exceptions, avoided . -
establishing new safety or environmental standard.s. The Comission notes, however, in response to coments that it should develop new safety
. . , standards before it promulgates new licensing procedures, that under the final rule's provisions for design certifications, each certification, being a rule, will in fact be a large body of safety standards,-many of l
them no doubt new. Here, at least, rather than standards having to precede procedure, procedures pave the way for new safety standards.
In any event, the Comission may chocfse to adopt additional safety standards applicable to new designs prior to the advent of design certifications.
)
i' Second, many saw this rule as the occasion for arguments over the future viability of nuclear power in the United States. On the one hand, the Commission is vigorously accused of promoting the nuclear industry and shutting local governments and individual citizens out of the licensing process (such charges in one case came from a commenter who said also that casting aspersions on the motives of one's opponents was
" repugnant"). On the other hand, the Connission is told that the licensing process is "the reason" for "the loss of the nuclear option",
andthatreformofthatkrocessisthe"sinequanon"oftheviabilityof that option.
, -s
.8
'Certainly, the Comission hopes 'that this rule will have a-beneficial .effect on the licensing process. In others words, the
- Comission hopes'that. effort has not been wasted on a rule which will never be used. But the Comission is not out to secure, single-handedly, .
. i the viability of the industry or.to shut the general public.out. The future of nuclear power depends not only on the licensing process but - .
- also on economic. trends and events, the safety and reliability of the !
plants, political fortunes, and much else. The Comission aims only to . <
have a sensible procedural framework in place for the consideration of designs of enhanced safety, and to make it possible to resolve safety and
. environmental' issues before' plants are-built, rather than after, i
Sumary of the Coments and the Comission's Responses ,
The coments on the proposed rule are~ characterized.both by their broad agreement that standardization and early resolution of licensing issues are desirable, and by their often deep differences on wh'at kinds I
.i of designs should be certified, how they should be certified, and what l consequences certification should have for the licensing process.
As to what kinds of designs should be certified, except for the very few who opposed any licensing of any nuclear power plant, no commenter opposes the certification of designs which differ significantly from the i designs which have been built thus far; but some, UCS, for 1,nstance, say 1
that only " advanced" designs should be certified, and many, including .
UCS, 00E, and Westinghouse, say that only designs for whole plants should be certified. l 1
b_____~__.___=_____.._____ _
c ..
o 9
.r
.While not withholding certification from incomplete designs or designs which are not advanced, the final rule has moved a long way from the position the Comission took in the legislative proposal it made shortly before this rulemaking began. There, certification was held out only for evolutionary light water designs, but was permitted for tne design of any " major portion" of a plant. The final rule provides for certification of advanced designs and pennits certification of designs of less than full scope only in highly restricted circumstances.
As to how designs should be certified, most comenters think the Commission has authority to certify either by rule or by license.
However, some comenters see advantages in certification by license.
OCRE, for instance, says that, certification by license is more appropriate,'hnd some industry commenters think that more projections are available to the holder of a design license than are available to the ,
" holder" of a design rule. Some commenters prefer certification by-license because they believe that a hearing on a license has to be a formal adjudication.
The final rule reflects the Commission's long-standing preference for certification by rulemaking (see 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 0, 4
paragraph 7)., and for c ratification hearing procedures which, while they permit formal procedures when needed, do not assume that formal procedures are the best means for resolving every safety issue.
I Finally, the deepest differences among the commenters " concern the .
'l consequences of standardization and other devices for early resolution of
)
_ _ __ ___ __ ___ __-- -___ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ ._. _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~
10 licensing issues for the licensing process. One comenter believes that, )
. 1 once a plant is built under a combined license, there need be no hearing ls at all before operation begins. .Several of these comenters characterize the proposed rule's provision for an opportunity for a hearing just before operation as the old two-step licensing process under a different name. Others believe not only that there should be such a hearing but .
also that resolution of issues in earlier proceedings does not entail any ;
restriction on the issues which may be raised in the hearing after construction. Many of these comenters attribute to the Comission an intent to do away with publ e participation in the licensing process.
The Comission has given more consideration to this controversy than j
~
to any other procedural question raised by the proposed rule. As a result, the proposed rule's provisions on hearings just before. operation -
have been significantly revised in the final, rule (the revised provisions are discussed in more detail below). However, the final rule still i
provides for an opportunity for a hearing on limited issues before operation under a combined license. But the mere fact of this opportunity does not mean that the rule is hiding the old two-step process under a different name. By far the greater part of the issues
, which in the past have been considered in operating license hearings !
i would, under the new rule, be considered at the combined license stage or in a certification proceeding, including the bulk of emergency planning issues. Similarly, the mere fact that ,any hearing prior to operation would be limited does not mean that the Comission is attempting to remove the public from the licensing process. The rule does not prev'ent l
! the public from participating in the resolution of any operating license l
l
11 i
jssue. It' simply moves the bulk of the issues up front in the licensing
- \
process to the design certification, early site permit, and combined license parts of the process. ,
i II. The Principal Issues ,
l-
- 1. Requirements for Applications for Design Certification !
Because design certification is the key procedural device in.Part 52 i
for bringing about enhanced safety and early resolution >:' licensing issues, the Commission begins its discussion of the principal issues with responses.to comments on the proposed rule's requirements for .l; applications, for certification.- l 1 '
- a. " Advanced" Designs The proposed rule provided for certification both of evolutionary light-water designs, that is, improved versions of the light-water designs now in operation, and of " advanced" designs, that is, designs which differ significantly from the evolutionary light-water designs, er which incorporate, to a greater extent than ev'olutionary light-water designs do, simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means to accomplish their safety functions (the distinction between evolutionary light-water designs and advanced designs is discussed at greater length - ,
below). The proposed rule required that some advanced designs could not be certified until full-scale prototyp'es of them were built and tested.
While agreeing with the requirement for prototype testing of some
,- 12.
. advanced designs,-severa1'commenters, UCS prominent among them, say that-certification should be held out only to advanced designs. UCS argues that without such' a limitation on the designs which could be offered up for certification, the proposed rule would discriminate against the .
development of advanced designs of greater safety, because, given the choice between seeking certification of a familiar design and seeking ,
certification of a design which the Comission might require to be tested in a full-scale prototype, an applicant would choose to avoid having to build a prototype.
As is noted above, the rule, unlike the legislative proposals which preceded it, provides for certification of advanced designs. However, it also provides for certification of evolutionary light-water designs. The Commission's legislative proposals on standardization ha,ve always focusec .
on these' designs, on the grounds that the light-water designs.now'in operation provide a high degree of protection to public health and safety. Moreover, the Comission does not believe that the requirement in some cases for a prototype is such a burden. Whatever burden having to test a prototype may be, the burden may be lessened by agreements of cost-sharing among utilities and other organizations, and by licensing the prototype for commercial operation. It is well to remember also that, under the rule, prototype testing is required only for certification, if at all . No prototype is required for a final design approval under 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix 0 (formerly in Part 50), although
'the approval may contain condit' ions requiring prototype testing for certification. See 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix 0, paragraph 5. Moreover, a licensed prototype may be replicated.
13 l
- b. Requirement to Address Unresolved Safety Issues and Safety Goals l
Several commenters object to the proposed rule's requirement that applicants for certification propose technical resolutions of Unresolved i
Safety Issues and high- and aedia-priority Generic Safety Issues. This requirement, and similar ones relating to probabilistic risk assessments ,
j l
dnd the Commission's Three Mile Island requirements for new plants, 10 .
l CFR 50.34(f), were announced in the Commission's Severe Accident Policy i
Statement (50 FR 32138; August 8, 1985) rad in the Commission's Policy Statement on Standardization (52 FR 34884; September 15,1987). Some commenters call it " inappropriate" tc impose this burden on applicants.
Others say that no resolution of one of these issues should be imposed on i
a design unless the resolution had passed a cost-benefit test. !
I The Comission believes that it is not inappropriate to require that l
an applicant for certification show either that a particular issue is not l relevant to the design proffered in tha application, or that the applicant has in hand a design-specific resolution of the issue (the ,
I applicant is of course not required to propose a generic resolution of !
theissue). As to cost-benefit tests, the Commission will of course apply them to the resolutkon of safe.ty issues where the resolutions are l Seing imposed on existing plants and adequate protection is already secured. See 10 CFR 50.109 and UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. ,
1987). However, initial certification does not involve backfitting.
Designers will, of course, strive for a cost-erfective design, but the
~
declines to incorporate a cost-benefit test in the standards for certification.
i I
14 i
l
- c. Requirements on Scope of Design and on Prototypes In the statement of considerations accompanying the proposed rule, the Commission noted that the proposed rule permitt'ed certification of incomplete designs only in limited cases, while the legislation the Commission had proposed to the 100th Congress had been less stringent .
about scope of design. The Connission invited comment on whether the final rule should return to the policy reflected in the proposed legislation. DOE, Westinghouse, and UCS, among others, argue that only designs of complete power plants -- excluding site-specific elements of course -- should be certified. NUMARC, however, advocates a return to the policy of the legislation proposed to the 100th Congress. One
. engineering firm argues that requiring complete designs would limit market forces that could contribute to standardization.
The final rule is even more stringent abuut completeness of design than the proposed rule was. The final rule's provisions on scope, see Q 52.47, reflect a policy that certain designs, especially designs which are evolutions of light-water designs now in operation, should not be certified unless they include all of a plant except its site-specific elements. See i 52.47(b). Examples of designs which are evolutions of currently operating light-water designs are General Electric's ABWR,
. .?
Westinghouse's SP/90, and Combustion Engineering's System 80+.
Full-scope may also be required of certain advanced designs, namely, the
" passive" light-water designs such as General Electric's SBWR and Westinghouse's AP600. Cons'iderations of safety, not market forces, constitute the basis for the final rule's requirement that these designs
- 15
\ .
be full-' scope designs. Long experience with operating light-water i designs more than adequa1!ely demonstrates the adverse safety impact which i
the balance of plant can have on the nuclear island. Given this t experience, certification of these designs must be based on a full consideration of the whole plant, or else the certification's of those .
designs will lack that degree of finality which should be the mark of -
i certification. l l
However, the Commission has not adopted UCS's position that no i design of incomplete scope could ever be certified. There is no reason to conclude that there could never be a design which protects the nuclear island against adverse effects caused by events in the balance of plant.
i The final rule therefore provides the. opportunity for certification of designs of less than complete scope, if they belong to the class of ;
i advanced designs. See Q 52.47(b). Examples of designs in this class !
include the passive light-water designs mentioned above and ;
non-light-water designs such as General Electric's PRISM, Rockwell's l SAFR, and General Atomic's MHTGR. But here too the rul,e sets a high l
standard: Certification of an advanced design of incomplete scope will be given only after a showing, using a full-scale prototype, that the balance of plant cannot significantly affect the safe operation of the plant. See id. ;
3 Standardization along these lines may indeed limit some market forces, particularly those which encourage a highly differentiated range of products. However, the final rule's requirements on scope in no way 1
a----------------------
16 limit innovative arrangements among vendors and architect-engineers. for bringing new designs before the Commission.
The final rule is clearer than the proposed rule was in identifying those designs which cannot be certified without a program of testing.
I For purposes of determining which designs must undergo a testing program .
t to be certified, the rule distinguishes between all advanced designs -- l be they passive light-water or non-light-water -- and evolutionary light-water designs. Some testing may be required of all advanced designs. Passive light-water designs are to some extent also evolutions ;
of the light-water designs now licensed, but.they have design features-
, l which are not present on plants licensed and operating in the United l States. Therefore.the rule requires that the maturity of the passive
. light-water designs be demonstrated through appropriate tests or I
analyses, but most likely not through prototype testing. See's 52.47(b).
However, prototype testing is likely to be required for certification of advanced non-light-water designs because these revolutionary designs use innovative maans to accomplish their safety functions, such as passive decay heat removal and reactivity control, and have not been licensed and operated in the United States. See id.
- d. Certification by Rulemaking a
The proposed rule provided for design certification by rulemaking.
\
- Here the proposed rule was in accord with the old 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 0, paragraph 7 (this paragraph is now being replaced by Subpart B of Part 52). However, in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the l
i 17 i;
Comission invited comments on whether certification should be by license
- i rather than rule. Although the Comission expressed some doubts on the '
matter, comenters generally agree that the Commission has the authority-to license designs. Some industry commenters and some public interest groups alike go further and argue that certification by license is' preferable. Industry commenters arguing this position believe that the .
rights and obligations which attach to a license are clearer than those which attach to a rule. For instance, a license is possessed by some entity and, under Comission law, cannot be transferred without that entity's consent. 'Seme public interest groups prefer certification by l q
license because they believe that the hearing on a license would have to be a formal adjudication.
l The Commission continues to believe that certification by rule is' j i
preferable to certification by license. As DOE says, a design certif.ication will, like a rule, have generic application. Moreover, certification by rulemaking leaves the Commission free to adapt hearing procedures to the requirements of ,the subject matter, rather than possibly constrained to use formal adjudicatory devices even when they l are not useful_(hearing procedures are more fully discussed below).
For the reasons just given, the final rule retains provisions for I certification by rulemaking. Westinghouse suggests also adding provisions for certification by license, leaving it to the applicant to l
choose between certification by license and certification by rulemaking.
The Commission, however, prefers rulemaking and sees no advantage to providing such an option.
l-18 ju L
NUMARC, while supporting certification by rule, suggests adding ]
provisions analogous to existing provisions in 10 CFR Part 50 for transfer or revocation of a license. See 10 CFR 50.80 and 50.100. J However, a rule certifying a design does not, strictly speaking, belong to the designer. Therefore, such a rule cannot be transferred or revoked by adjudicatory enforcement. Applying 9 50.80, in particular, to a rule , l certifying a design would be akin to giving the vendor of the design a patent, but the Commission has no authority to issue patents.
Nonetheless, the vendor whose design is certified by rule is not without protection. The Administrative Procedure Act and, ultimately, j judical review protect the vendor against arbitrary amendment or recission of the certification rule, and the law of patents and trade secrets protects t.he vendor against unlawful use of the design., In 6rde.r i tohivethevendormoreopportunitytotreatelementsofthedesignas trade secrets, the final rule provides that proprietary information contained in an application for design certification sh511 be given the same treatment that such information would be given in a proceeding on an application for a construction permit or an operating license under 10 CFR Part 50. See 5 52.51.
- e. Applicability of Existing Standards s
With one exception, the proposed rule did not say what safety standards would be applied te a design proffered for certification, or
19 even precisely what existing information requirements applicants would have to meet.2 In its lengthy and highly detailed comments, NUMARC proposes adding to the rule a large number of highly specific cross-references to other safety regulations.
The final rule incorporates only a few of NUMARC's suggested ,
cross-reference.s. The Commission's aim throughout this rulemaking has been to write a rule which is directed primarily at procedures and information needs, and to leave the question of what safety standards should apply to new designs to other Commission activities -- new rulemakings and guidance documents -- and to the certification rulemakings themselves. It remains to be seen whether, for instance, the
. standards in Part 50 are the standards by which the new designs on the horizon should be judged. It may well sometimes happen in a certification rulemaking that even a Part 50 standard which is technically relevant to a design being considered for certification should be set aside in favor of a new standard. Indeed, one advantage to certification by rulemaking is that the proffered design becomes the occasion for setting new standards. The Commission's existing safety standards, even the more generic among them, nave arisen in large part after careful consideration of particular designs. The rule permits the same process to continue with respect to future designs.
)
The proposed rule did state that an application for certification would have to demonstrate that the design complied with the technically relevant portions of the Commission's Three Mile Island requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(f). See ! 52.47(a), 53 FR at 32073 (proposed rule).
__________m_-___.___m _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _
1 1
.f.-' Hearings ~on Applications for Design Certifications-Like the proposed rule,-the final. rule provides for notice and a
conment rulemaking on an application.for a design certification,.
together with.an opportunity for an 1nformal hearing on an application d
1 for a design certification. The rule also permits the use of more formal ,
procedures where-they.are the only procedures available for resolving a given issue properly. See 5 52.51. UCS and others argue that.any hearing on certification should be a formal adjudication. In particular, UCS argues that the certification proceeding will be dealing with adjudicative, as' opposed to legislative, facts and therefore should be i fully adjudicatory. UCS characterizes adjudicative' facts as " uniquely related,to activities'of the parties that are at issue" and legislative.
facts as " facts about industry practices,. economic . impact, sci.entific.
data, and other information about which the parties have no special i
information."
UCS' argument proves too much: If.the facts.to be considered in a l l
certif1' cation proceeding are wholly adjudicative, then, since those' facts ,
I are like the facts considered in any rulenaking on safety issues, every such rulemaking must be a formal adjudication; but this conclusion is clearly not the . law; therefore, the facts in a certification proceeding are not wholly adjudicatory. Moreover, if such facts must be categorized j at all, they are more " legislative" than " adjudicative", as UCS defines those terms, for while they are "rdlated to activities of the parties",
they are not uniquely'so, and they are facts about " industry practices, scientific data", engineering principles, and the like.
_-_-__ _____._m______.___________
. )
l l
Several commenters also argue that the certification proceeding should be a formal adjudication because cross-examination is an unsurpassed means for discovering the truth. Again, the argument proves too much, namely, that every rulemaking, indeed every species of lawmaking, should be formal adjudication. Part 52 does not assume the superiority, or even the usefulness, of formal procedures for resolving -
every issue; but it does provide for their use where they are the only means available for resolving an issue properly.
- g. Fees for Review of Applications The final rule adheres to the fee policy embodied in the proposed rule. An applicant for design certification does not have to pay an application fee, but the applicant will have to pay the full' cost of the NRC review of the application,~although not until the certification is referenced in an application for a construction permit or combined license, or, failing that, not until the certification expires. The details of the scheme of deferral of the fees appear in conforming amendments to the recently revised 10 CFR 170.
UCS asserts that the provision for deferral of fees for NRC review is " unconscionable". To the contrary, the Ccmmission believes that there is nothing " unconscionable" about deferral of fees for a program whose aim is to enhance safety. >
Some industry commenters assert that the requirement for payment of the full cost of NRC review presents an " insurmountable disincentive" to 6
l f i -- ,.
s -.
22 the development of certified designs. Some industry commenters propose
, putting a ceiling on fees for certification review, in order to help 1 1 '
vendors better estimate the costs of developing and certifying a design.
. The Commission full'y recognizes that it will be cifficult for a vendor.to l
' estimate the costs'of taking a-design through to certification.- However, a ceiling on fees only displaces the burden .of that uncertainty from the vendor to the public. . In recent years, the NRC has been obliged by statute to charge fees which return to the Federal Treasury an ever _
increasing portion of the costs incurred in regulation. Deferral of fees is more'in line with the policies behind those statutes than is putting ,
the burden of uncertainty on the public.
I
- h. Finality , ,
i Standardization has the double aim' of enhancing safety and making it possible to resolve design. issues before construction. Of these two aims, enhanced safety is the chief, because pre-construction resolution of design issues could be achieved simply through combined construction permits and conditional operating licenses. Achievement of the enhanced safety which standardization makes possible will be frustrated if too frequent changes to either a certified design or the plants referencing it'are permitted. ,
The proposed rule put forward principally three means of preventing a continual rdgression from standardization. First, the proposed rule r'equired that any amendment proffered by the " holder" of a certification be considered in a notice and comment rulemaking and granted if the
~
23.
amendment complied with the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations. Second, the proposed rule prohibited the licensee, of a plant built according to a certified-design from making.any change to any part of the plant which was described in the certification unless the
, licensee had been granted an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 frcm the rule certifying the design. Third, the proposed rule stated that the Comission would nqt backfit a certified design or the plants built 1
according to it unless a backfit were necessary to' assure compliance with ]
the applicable regulations or to assure adequate protection of public ;
I health and sa'fety. See 6 52.63 of the proposed rule, 53 FR at 32074, i
col. 3, to 32075, col. 2. The Commission invited comment on whether the -l amendment and exemption standards were stringent enough, and on whether the backfitting standard gave certifications a reasonable degree of [
finality. See 53 FR at 32067, col. 2. j
)- The comments focus on the standard for amending the certification, -l one group of comments wanting to make it harder for the " holder"'of a j L
certification to get an amendment, and another group wanting to make it
~
L easier. Several commenters say that the proposed rule wrongly makes it '
j easier for the designer to amend the certified design than it is for the Commission to backfit the design. To correct this perceived imbalance, j UCS, among others, proposes that no amendment be granted unless it constitutes a safety enhancement, and that any amendment granted be backfitted on all plants built according to the design being amended.
OCRE proposes that, at a minimum, no amendment should be grar*d which 1
would entail a decrease in safety. On the other side, flUMARC proposes I
virtually the same standard as a maximum: Any amendment which has no
~'
. 24 safety impact should be granted. 00E in effect' argues that the I Commission does not have authority to ask for more than OCRE's minimum, because such amendments would be proposed for economic, plant efficiency, or other business reasons and the NRC has no expertise or authority in l areas involving business judgments. The l'aw firm of Bishop, Cook, Purcell, and Reynolds, representing several utilities, proposes a 4 backfitting standard more stringent than the one in the proposed rule:
The Consnission should not impose backfits on a design for the sake of compliance with applicable regulations unless the lack of compliance has an adverse impact on safety. Going even further in the same vein, the !
U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposes that even where the lack of compliance has an adverse impact on safety, the backfit should have to pass muster under a cost-benefit analysis. , , ,
I The final rule places a designer on the same footing as the Commission or any other interested member of the public: No matter who proposes it, a change will not be made.to a design certification while it is in effect unless the change is necessary to bring the certification into compliance with Commission regulations applicable an'd in effect when the certification was issued (or renewed), or to assure adequate protection of public health and safety. See 9 52.63(a)(1). Thus, the final rule cannot be said to make it easier for a designer to amend a certification than for the Comnission to backfit the design. But more important, the final rule thus providt:s greater assurance that
- standardization and the concomitant safety benefits will be preserved.
- I
-25 .
I
.The Comission is not adopting Bishop, Cook's suggestion that. I complianceberequiredonlywhennon-compljancewouldnothaveanadverse !
impact on' safety. Licensees seeking relief from a design certification, who believe that non-compliance would have no adverse impact no' safety, should request &n exemption under 10 CFR 50.12. Neither is the Comission adopting the suggestion of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that ,
. cost-benefit analysis be used to determine whether to impose _backfits on I
designs to bring them into compliance with applicable regulations. The j Atomic Energy Act allows the Comission to consider costs only in deciding whether to establish or whether :o enforce through backfitting !
safety requirements.that are not necessary to provide adequate protection. See UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108,120 (1987).
t The final rule, like the proposed rule,, permits applicants for combined licenses issued under the rule, and licensees of a-plant built according to a certified design, to request an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 from a rule certifying a design. Among the coments on the '
i appropriateness of using 5 50.12 in the standardization context were NIRS' coment that 6 50.12 permittec exemptions at a "whim" and DOE's suggestion that no exemptions should be granted at all. Out of resp'ect for the unforeseen, the Comission has decided to adhere to i 50.12, but '
the final rule does require that, before an exemption can be granted, .the effect which the exemption might have on standardization and its safety benefits must be considered.
As a further guard against a loss of standardization, the final rule, again like the proposed rule, also prohibits a licensee of a plant I
26 -
built according to a certified design from making any change to any part of-the plant which is described in the certification unless the licensee ,
has been granted an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 from the rule certifying the design. Because the certification is a rule,'10 CFR 50.12, not j 1
50.59, is the standard for determining whether the licensee may make '
changes to the design of the plant without prior approval from th'e NRC.
i NUMARC says that, given the practicalities of construction and the j 1
limited resources of the NRC staff, licensees need the flexibility afforded by 6 50.59. However, the Commission believes that the
)
certifications themselves and i 50.12 will provide the necessary flexibility, or at least as much flexibility as is consistent with achievin.g the safety benefits of standardization. How much flexibility
. there will be depends in large part on how much detail is present in a
. design. certification, and just how much is pres.ent will be an issue which ,
i will have to be resol'ved in each certification rulemaking. The j Commission does expect, however, that there will be less detail in a I certification than in an application for certification, and that a rule certifying a design is likely to encompass roughly the same design i features that i 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval.
Moreover, the level of design detail in certifications should afford !
licensees an opportunity to take advantage of improvements in equipment.
The comments on the proposed rule raise two other important finality issues, both connected with backfitting. The first bears en the criteria for renewal of a design certification. The proposed rule provided that the Commission would grant a reouest for renewal of a design certification if the design complied with regulations in effect at
, 7 27 -
renewal and any more stringent safety requirements which would bring l about a substantial igerease in safety at a cost justified by the*'
increase'(strictly speaking, the backfit rule would not apply a't renewal, but the' proposal nonetheless incorporated the backfit rule's cost-benefit standards). See 6 52.59(a), 53 FR at 32074, col. 3.
Bishop, Cook, among others, proposes that the stendard for renewal be compliance with ,
regulations in effect not at renewal but rather at the time the certification was originally issued, together with any other more stringent requirements which are justified under the backfit rule. !
However, the proposed rule's criteria were in fact equivalent to Bishop, Cook's in their impact on a given design certification, but they differed in their impact on the timing of some backfit analyses, the proposed rule providing that some would be done in rulemakings while the given
, -l certification'was in effect. The final rule retains the substance of the proposed rule's provisions on renewal, in part because they reduce the ;
i number of issues which would have to be considered in a renewal l 1
proceeding.
, The second of the other important finality issues raised by the coments concerns the finality of 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix 0 (formerly in Part 50) final design approvals (FDAs) already in effect on the effective
, date of this rule. Section 52.47(a)(2) of the proposed rule stated that
(
- l. holders of FDAs in effect on the effective date of the rule might have to
, submit more information to the staff in connection with the review for certification. NUMARC proposes adding a " grandfather" clause which would prohibit the Commission from imposing, during the certification -
proceeding, any change on that part of the design which is covered by an 1
l
2a . .
1
. , 1 1
al' ready effective FDA unless the change meets the criteria of th,e backfit. 3 rule.
Adoption of NUMARC's proposal would not only entail a significant change'in the force of an FDA, it would also extend the range of application of the backfit rule. Under existing NRC regulations, an FDA i binds the staff in a' licensing proceeding but.not in, a _ certification .
proceeding; and ,even in a licensing proceeding, the staff may, on.the l grounds of significant new information or other good cause, reconsider an j earlier detennination. See 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix 0, paragraph 5. {
Moreover, the FDA does not bind the Commission or the Comission's l adjudicatory panels. Id. at paragraph 6. .The backfit rule applies to. {
l any proposal which would require the holder of an FDA to meet a new l
. standard in order to remai.n in possession of the FDA, see 10 CFR 1
'50.109(a)(1), but the backfit rule does not change the force an FDA has l in a licensing proceeding or certification proceeding.
)
NUMARC's proposal, however, would bind both the staff and the Commission in a certification proceeding and would add a cost-benefit test to the tests which must be met before a determination made in an FDA could be reconsidered. NUMARC's proposal thus would effectively' amend both the backfit rule and the cited paragraphs of Appendix 0: It would, in effect, turn any existing FDA into a partial certification. Here the Commission would rather adhere to the finality provisions in the existing ;
regulations, including Appendix 0 and the backfit rule. The Commission believes that, in this situation, these provisions adequately balance the i
l q
1 f
a
___________.___1____.. _ __.
29 .j 1
need for finality with the need for flexibility to deal with unforeseen
) safety advances or risks.
- 2. Early Site Permits -
What design certification is to the early resolution of design ,
issues, the early site permit is to the early resolution of site-related issues. Both the certification and the permit make it possible to ,
resolve important licensing issues before a construction permit proceeding. They in effect make possible the banking of designs ano sites, thereby making the licensing of a given plant more efficient.
However, some commenters question whether the Comission should issue early site permi,ts. The Attorney General of New York, for instance, sees no need for early site permits and questions whether there cou.d 1 be grounds adequate to support approval of a site for twenty years, the term of early site permits under the proposed rule (the final rule provides that permits will have terms of between ten and twenty years). He points out that under the NRC's current regulations, NRC early decisions on site suitability issues raised in connection with a construction permit generally remain effective'for only five years. See 10 CFR 2.606 and 10 CFR Part 52, App. Q (formerly in Part 50), paragraph 5. The Connecticut Siting Council strongly suggests that the State of Connecticut would be unable to participate in an NRC hearing on an application for an early
~
site permit unless the application proposed a " specific" nuclear power plant. Finally, one commenter is concerned that land approvec under an early site permit might never be used for a nuclear power plant, and thus
. e. .
30 i
development of the land for a non-nuclear use would have been needlessly delayed.
The Comission believes that early site permits can usefully serve as vehicles for resolving most site issues before large commitments of resources are made. Moreover, the Comission believes that a term of ten ,'
to twenty years for early site permits will make early site permits more useful for early resolution of site issues than would the five-year term in 10 CFR 2.606 and 10 CFR Part 52, App. Q, because the longer tern will require less frequent reassessments of issues than would the shorter term. The five-year term is a function not of the reliability of the information available to make the decisions, but rather of the fact that i l
the decisions made under those provisions may only resolve isolated site issues3 and anticipate site utilization 1,n the very near term. The Commission is confident that there will be information adequate to ,
support site approvals lasting up to 20 years. After all, the Comission licenses plants and their sites for operation for periods 'of up to twice twenty years. Where adequate infonnation is not available, early site permits will not be issued.
f The Commission is also confident that enough information on reactor 4
design will be available in an early site permit proceeding to permit sound judgments about environmental impacts and thus to enable state and l
3 Thus, the Commission declines to follow the suggestion of the engineering firm of Stone & Webster that partial early site permits be issued. It is not likely'that resolutions of isolated site issues could have the degree of finality which a permit lasting ten to twenty years must have.
31 local agencies such as the Connecticut Siting Council to participate effectively in an early* site permit proceeding. The Council says that for it to meaningfully participate in a decision on an application for an early site permit, the application would have to contain '! projected emission, discharges, site impacts, safety factors, and exact operational parameters ... proposed for a site". It is just such information which .
both the proposed rule and the final rule would require of applicants for early site permits. See.5 52.17(a).
Last, although the Commission acknowledges the possibility that non-nuclear development of a site would be postponed when a site is reserved for a nuclear plant and then a plant never built there, the Commission believes that such a possibility does not loom very large.
Persons are not likely to go to the expense of applying for an early site permit unless there is a good prospect that the site will be used for a nuclear power plant. Moreover, it may be that many of the sites for which early site permits might be sought are already set aside for use by utilities; thus, even though non-nuclear development of the site might be postponed, non-utility uses of the site would not be. Last, even during the period in which an early site permit is in effect, non-nuclear uses of the site are not prohibited altogether. See 9 52.35.
The comments on the proposed rule raise two other importa'nt issues concerning the rule's provisions on early site permits. The first issue concerns the division of authority between the federal government and local governments over the siting of nuclear power facilities. The New I
York State Energy Office is concerned that the proposed rule leaves the
32 impression that only an early site permit from the NRC is necessary to set aside land for a nuclear power plant. To the contrary, the rule does not, indeed, could not, change the division of authority between the ,
federal government and the states over the siting of nuclear plants. An early site permit constitutes approval of a site only under the federal . z-statutes and regulations administered by the Comission, not under any .
other applicable laws. --
The last important issue raised by the comments on early site permits concerns the proposed rule's requirement that the application contain a plan for redress of the site in the event that the site preparation work and similar work allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) is performed and the site permit expires before it f s referenced in an application for a construction permit or combined license issued under .
the rule. The proposed rule required that the plan provide reasonable g assurance that redress carried out under the plan would achieve a "self-maintaining, environmentally stable, and aesthetically acceptable ,
site" which conformed to local zoning laws. The only important difference between the proposed and final rules on this subject is that j the final rule requires such a plan only of applicants who wish to l perform the activities' allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). NUMARC says that this requirement is " inherently unworkable" and would involve the Commission in matching redress against a variety of local zoning laws.
. To the contrary, the rule's provisions on site redress, including the provision on zoning, are modeled on the fully litigated redress requirements imposed on the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project. See In
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - m_- ._. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
33 s ..
the Matter of the U.S. Department of Energy, et al. (Clinch River Breeder ReictorPlant),LBP-85-7,'21NRC507(1985). Moreover, the Comission has long required that appli' cants' environmental reports discuss compliance with local laws, including zoning laws.. See 10 CFR 51.45(d).
Apparently, NUMARC is not opposed to redress per se, for NUMARC's 3 proposed revision of 6 52.25 of the proposed rule speaks of the ,
possibility that redress _of adverse environmental impacts might be necessary. The Comission is only requiring that such redress follow the precedent established at Clinch River and proceed according to a plan incorporated in the early site permit. Containing a redress plan, the permit itself will constitute assurance that, if site preparation activities are carried out but the site never used for a nuclear power plant, the site will not.be left in an unacceptable condition.
- 3. Combined Licenses 3 l
The Commission's Authority to Issue Combined Licenses a.
There are two important questions in connection with the proposed-rule's provisions on ecmbined construction permits a'nd conditional operating licenses. The first is whether the Commission has the authority to issue such combined licenses. The second is whether, in caseswherealldesignissuesareresolddbeforeconstructionbegins, there shoulo be a hearing after construction is complete, and if so, what c
issues should be considered at the hearing.
l l
(' _ - - - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _
e, .,
34 Comments on whether the Commission has the authority to issue combined licenses tend'to mirror the commenters' views on what kind of hearing should be held after construction is complete. In-other words, the discussion of this issue tends to be result-oriented. Thus, many who -
believe that there should be a-hearing after construction, and that it should be as full-a hearing as operating license hearings often are, argue that the Consnission has no authority to issue combined licenses.
They claim.that Section 185 of'the Atomic Energy Act mandates a two-step licensing process (for the text of Section 185, see.below). They often.
cite . Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961) as support for this interpretation of ^
Section 185. To these arguments, those who believe that there should be
~
no hearing, or else only a highly. restricted hearing, after construction
,is complete reply that Section 161h of the Atomic Energy Act: gives the A
Commission authority to combine a construction permit and an operating '!
i license (some believe it is not necessary to call the operating license
" conditional") in a single license (for the text of Section 161h, see below).
A closer look at Section 161h and 185 shows that Section 161h clearly gives the Commission authority to combine a construction pennit - ;
and openting license in a single license and that Secti.on 185 is not inconsistent with Section 161h. Section 161h says, in pertinent part, that the Commission has the authority to " consider in a single application one or more of the activities for which a license is required -
by this Act, [and] combine in a single license one or more of such activites ..." 42 U.S.C. 2201. The plain language of this section I
i m
j 35 i
l clearly applies to the combining of construction permits and operating.
licenses, for both construction and operation of nuclear power facilities are " activities for which a license is required by this Act", namely by Sections 101 and 185 of the Act, see 42 U.S.C. !! 2231 and 2235, and Section 103a of the Act makes any license to operate a commerical nuclear power facility " subject to such conditions as the Comission may by rule .
or regulation' establish ..." See 42 U.S.C. 2233. Had Congress intended that construction permits and operating licenses for comercial nuclear power plants be excluded from the language of Section 161h, surely Congress would have said so right in that section, for the plain language of that section invites their inclusion, and they are the most important licenses issued under the Act.
Section 185 is not to the contrary. Section 1' 85 says, in pertinent l
part, CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.--All applicants for licenses to construct
.... utilization facilities shall ... be initially grantec a construction permit. ... Upon the completion of the construction ... of the facility, upon the filing of any additional information needed to bring the original application up to date, and upon finding that the facility authorized has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the application as amended and in conformity with the provisions of this Act and of the rules and regulations of the Commission, and in the absence of any good cause being shown to the Commission why the granting of a license would not be in
- accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall thereupon issue a license to the applicant. ...
I 42 U.S.C. 2235. To'be sure, the section speaks in terms of a construction permit's being issued first, and then a license (presumably i an operating license). However, the contrast between the two licenses is not fundamental to the section. The substance of'the section is clearly indicated by the title of the section and by the list of findings the
;O '
36 .
1 Commission must make. The section may be paraphrased thus: A construction permit is not a grant of authority to operate once i
construction is complete; before' operation begins, the original application must be brought up to date, and the Comission must make certain affirmative findings. Thus the critical. matter is not the i separation of the two licenses, but the need for specific findings before ,
operatio'n. With this substance, both the proposed rule and the final rule are entirely in accord (the pertinent provisions of the final rule . l will be described in more detail below).
Moreover, in differentiating between a " construction permit" and a later " license", Section 185 is not taking exception to Section 161h.
~
Section 185 does not say,.for instance, "Notwithstanding anything in Section 161h to the contrary, applicants shall be granted initially only a construction permit." By speaking of a separate issuance of a license after completion of construction, Section 185 simply conforms itself to ,
the simplest case, in which the licenses .are in their elementary, uncombined states, and avoids having to make an already long section longer in order to acknowledge the case which Section 161h makes .
I possible. Moreover, Section 185 acknowledges Section 161h implicitly ]
1 when it speaks not of a separate application for an operating license but ]
simply of an updating of the original application. Therefore, neither the proposed rule nor the final rule can be faulted for not providing for a separate issuance of an operating license.
This interpretation of Section 185 is confirmed by the legislative history of the section. In 1954, when Congress was considering proposed i
37
. .i amendments to the Atonic Energy Act of 1946, representatives of the i
industry. complained that the proposed Section 185 required that !
construction of a facility be completed "under a mere construction l
- - permit, without any assurance at that. stage that there will be is' sued any license to ... operate it after it has met,all'the specifications of the construction permit." Atomic Energy Act of 1954: Hearings on S. 3323 , ;
and H.R. 8862 Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 83rd Congress, 2d Session, 113 (May 10, 1954). These representatives proposed instead that power facility applicants should be able to obtain a single license
.i' covering all aspects of their activities -- construction, possession of fuel, and operation -- and that the license should contain the conditions the applicant would have to meet before operation of a construct,ed j
. . I facility could begin. On this proposal, the Id. at 113 and 118.
following colloquy'took place: - i Representative HINSHAW. That 'seems to me to be - .
reasonable, that you should put all the conditions into 1 !
license that can be put into 1 license. That would be fair i enough.
Chairman COLE. Would you mind my interruption? Why j cannot that be done under the terms of the bill as it is now?
Mr.McQUILLEN[representingDetroitEdison). I think it undoubtedly would be so operated.
Chairman COLE. Of course it would. !
Id. at 119. Chainnan Cole said this even though neither of the draft.
l bills before the Committee contained the text of what is now Section 161h. Twelve days later, as if to put the matter beyond all doubt, the Committee incorporated the present text of Section 161h into both bills.
l The final rule provides for just such a single, conditional, license as l
was discussed in this colloquy. i l
- _ _ _ - _ -_ 1
38 '
Power Reactor Development Co. v. Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 - ')
(1961), is not to the contrary. The issue in that case was not whether -
the Commission had the authority to combine a construction permit with a conditional operating license, but whether the Commission could postpone the ultima'te safety findings until construction was complete. The Court I
ruled that the Commission could, and found support for its conclusion in l Section 185, which showed, the Court said, that " Congress contemplated a ;
step-by-step procedure." 367 U.S. at 405. But the Court did not say, "Section 185 mandates a separate issuance of an operating license, l
notwithstanding Section 161h." The interpretation of Section 161h of the Act was not at issue.
i
. .b. Hearings After Construction is Complete The first issue concerning hearings after completion of construction under a combined license is whether there should be such hearings at all. fiost commenters, whatever their affiliation, believe that there should be the opportunity for such hearings. They disagree only over how limited the hearings should be. Only DOE argues that there should be no such hearings at all. As the principal support for its argument, DOE cites the section of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which says, in effect, that adjudication is not required in cases in which the agency decision rests " solely on inspections, tests, or elections". See 5 U.S.C.554(a)(3). Under Part 52's provisions on combined licenses, a combined license will contain the tests, inspection, and analyses, a'nd acceptance criteria therefor, which are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been. constructed and
39 1
. )
will operate in conformity with the license and the Act. See 5 52.97. ,
DOE's. argument amounts to the claim that the' kind of tests and inspections spoken of in Part 52 is the same as the kind of tests and inspections spoken of in the APA.
. i The Comission agrees that findings which rest ' solely on the results ,
of tests and inspections should not be adjudicated, and the final rule so i
provides. See 6 52.103. However, not every finding the Commission must ;
make bet' ore operation begins under a combined license will necessarily j always be wholly self-implementing and encompassed within the 4PA exception. For instance, it is a matter of law that findings based on j the results of emergency preparedness exercises do not fall under the /,P!, l
.i exception. UCS v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437,1449-51 (D.C. Cir.1984). D,0E i
~
claims that the' Comission could satisfy the requirements of this f judicial decision simply by incorporating a description of the emerge'ncy 1
preparedness exercises, and the acceptance criteria for them, into the i combined license. The Commission agrees that this could be true a theoreti.cally, if the acceptance criteria were highly detailed and entailed-little judgment and discretion in their application. But this may not always be possible. For example, under current regulations, the results of an emergency planning exercise are litigable to determine if the exercise reveals any " fundamental flaws" in the emergency plan. ;
Application of an emergency planning exercise acceptance criterion that the exercise show no " fundamental flaw" would entail considerable discretion and judgment ano would clearly be litigable under UCS v. NRC.
- -o e
40 4
Moreover, setting the subject of emergency planning aside, the.
Commission does not believe that it is prudent to decide now,. before the Commission has even once gone through the process of judging whether a plant built under a combined license is ready to operate, that every finding the. Commission will have to make at that point will be cut-and-dried -- proceeding according to " objective criteria" and not l
involving questions of " credibility, conflicts, and sufficiency", l questions which the UCS Court held were marks of issues which should be j!
l litigated at least under the facts of that case. Indeed, trying to j assure that the tests, inspections, and related acceptance criteria in the combined license are wholly self-implementing may well only succeed in introducing inordinate delay into the he,aring on the application for a combined license, j Thus, the question becomes whether the rul'e must provide an j opporunity for a post-construction hearing on the issues which are not excepted from adjudication by the APA. Every commenter who believes k
there should be such an opportunity also believes that an issue in the hearing should be whether construction has been completed in accord with the terms of the combined license, and the final rule so provides. Also, under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Comission must find, prior to facility operation, that the facility has been constructed and j will operate in conformity with the application and the rules and regulations of the Commission. This statutory finding, in the context of Subpart C of thris rule, translates into two separate but related regulatory findings: that compliance with the acceptance criteria in the combined license will provide reasonable assurance that the facility has 1
l
41 been constructed and will operate in accordance with the Commission's -
requirements, and that the acceptance criteria have in fact been satisfied. The former finding will be made prior to issuance of the ;
combined license, and will necessarily be the subject of any combined !
l license hearing under Section 189a of the Act. The latter finding cannot i by its nature be made until later, after construction is substantially '
l i
complete, and therefore cannot by its nature be-the subject of any ,
hearing prior to issuance of the' combined license. It follows that a limited opportunity for hearing, confined to the single issue that cannot have been litigated earlier -- whether the acceptance criteria are j satisfied -- should be afforded prior to operation. No commenter as offered any legal argument to the contrary.4 -
I Cornmenters . disagree gr.eatly on whether any other iss'ue should be considered in a hearing. The proposed rule provided that interveners could contend that significant new information showed that some modification to the site or the design was necessary to assure adequate protection. To this, NUMARC responds that "no one could seriously consider ordering a new plant with the licensing uncertainties it would 1
face." NUMARC proposes a complete rewrite of 9 52.103, elements of which are discussed below. Several industry comenters point to the "added ,
I burdens" that applicants would be assuming under the proposed rule as grounds for severely limiting the issues for hearing. Rockwell j f
Sectica 185 also says that, prior to operation, there must be an
" absence o# good cause being shown to the Commission why the granting of the licen'e would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Act."
We thir! that this implicit opportunity to show " good cause" is satisfied
! (Footnote Continued) l
g . .
A2 l, u.
l International, for instance, c'laims that, with the hearing under i 1 52.103, there will be four public hearings for each plant.
Public interest groups also take a dim view of the proposed rule's l limitations on the hearing, though their reasons are not the industry's.- 1 I
UCS says that a licensing proceeding without uncertainty is a sham. OCRE . -
goes further and asserts that the uncertainty should be distributed equally: - "In a perfectly fair proceeding, [the] chance [of winning] l would be 50i " The Maryland Nuclear Safety Coalition counts only two hearings for each plant. NIRS says that many prob'iems with the current generation of reactors were cured under the full two-step' licensing' process. 0CRE also regards the whole rule as "merely a clever exploitation of human nature, which is _such that most people are not .
motivated to act until an immediate, direct, and tangible threat is perceived to exist."
This latter group of commenters appears to be opposed to any limitation on the post-construction hearing, for not one of them proposes -
1 a concrete alternative to the proposed rule's provisions on the hearing.
UCS does say that the hearing should encompass "all issues that are material to the NRC's approval of an operating license for the plant", ,
but that statement is either so general as to be juct another way to put ,
the question of what issues should be encompassed, or it is the claim tha't , when it comes time to determine whether the plant has been built in b
(Footnote Continued) by affording an opportunity for hearing on all findings that will be made prior to facility operation.
. i conformity with the terms of the combined license, all the operating i license issues resolved before construction:should be treated as if they.
had never been resolved. Many commenters do in fact seem to be making such a claim, for they contend.against any limits on the post-construction hearing at the same time that they support the idea-that design issues should be resolved before construction. .
There-have to be substantial limits on_the issues that can be raised-after construction.. A licensing proceeding without any uncertainty in i result may be a sham, but the bulk of the uncertainty should be' addressed l and resolved prior-to, no't after, construction. Part 52 does not remove uncertainty, it simply reallocates it to the beginning of the licensing process. The alternative,apparently, offered by opponents of limits on thecpast-construction' hearing is, irt effect, t.u double the uncertainty by 1considering every design issue twice.5 To the extent that these commenters offer any practical arguments in favor of this approach, they are not persuasive. Rockwell International may engage in some double-counting when it asserts that there are four public hearings for each plant, but when the Maryland Nuclear Safety Coalition says that the public can debate licensing issues only in an early site permit hearing and after construction, and therefore needs another hearing on design 5
Even according to OCRE's notion of a " perfectly fair" proceeding, in which perfect fairness could be achieved by replacing judges with '
tosses of coins, design issues should not be resolved twice. If they were, interveners would have two 50% chances to win -- that is, to -
prevent operation of the plant -- on design issues. But two even chances are equivalent to a 75% chance overall (e.g., the chance of coming up heads once in two tosses of a coin is 3 out of 4), and a proceeding in -
- . which one party has a 75% chance of winning is not, according to OCRE,
" perfectly fair".
j -
44 j issues, it inexplicably simply ignores the mandatory public hearing on the application for the combined license and the opportunity for a public hearing on an application for a design certification. Moreover, contrary to NIRS, shortcomings in certain plants were not discovered because the licensing proceedings consisted of two steps but rather because design issues had to be resolved and construction made to confom to design ,
before operation began. Part 52 provides for n'o less. Finally, OCRE's claim that it is hutaan nature not to act until immediately and tangibly threatened is no argument in favor of two-step licensing. However, it is also human nature to debate important actions fully before taking them.
The final rule adopts a straight-forward approach to limiting the issues in any post-construction hearing on a' combined license. As a ma.tter of logic, ever'y conceivable contention which could be raised a.t that stage would necessarily take one of two general forms. It would allege either that construction had not been completed -- and the plant would not operate -- in conformity with the terms of the combined license, or that those tems were themselves not in confomity with the Atomic Energy Act and pertinent Comission requirements. The final rule makes issues of conformity with the terms of the combined license part of any post-construction hearing, unless those issues are excepted from i
adjudication by the APA exception for findings which are based solely on the results of tests and inspections. The final rule does not attempt to say in advance what issues might fall under that exception. The comments I are n arly unanimous in the opinion that issues of conformity with the, combined license are properly encompassed in any post-construction
, hearing. Moreover, this limited opportunity for hearing is consistent f ,
l , i l
l l
- 45 -
l i
with tne Comission's belief that, even if Section 185 did not speak at all the need for a conformity finding, the Commission itself would need l
to make such a finding prior to' operation in order to conclude, in the !
~
language of Section 103, that operation is not inimical to the health and safety of the public. The final rule also provides that issues of 1
whether the tems of the combined license are themselves inadequate are to be brought before the Commission under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.206. ;
i This approach to issues,concerning the inadequacy of the combined license is well-founded in the discretion afforded the Commissicn under Section 185 of the Act to detennine what constitutes " good cause" for not permitting operation, and in the analogy which this approach has with the way construction pennits are treated in operating license proceedings.
Contentions alleging inadequacies in a construction permit are not
. admissible in ah operating licens.e proceeding. Similarly, under the, final rule, contentions alleging inadequacies in a combined license are not admissible in a post-construction hearing. Moreover, as we have noted, this approach fully satisfies applicable law.
III. Other Issues These are taken up section by section. Not discussed are most of '
the many changes made to the proposed rule for the sake of clarity, brevity, consistency, specificity, and the like. Worth noting, however, is that this Federal Register notice moves Appendices M, N, 0, and Q of Part 50 to Part 52, so that, except for Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 2, all of the Commission's regulations on standardization and early resolution of licensing issues will be in one part of 10 CFR Chapter I. Readers are reminded that a comparative text showing all deletions from, and 1
______ __ -__ - ___ _ _______-__ _ ____ _ _ m
1 E .
46 h.
additions to, the proposed rule is available in the NRC's public document l ,
room. ,
i l
- 1. Early Site Permits 1 ?
L l !
At the suggestion of NUMARC and others, 9 52.17 now gives applicants ,
for early site permits the option of submitting emergency planning l
" parameters",. or even complete emergency plans, for final approval.
, Also, the section requires a redress plan only of applicants who wish to be able to perform the site preparation work and similar work allcwed under 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Last, incorporating suggestions by UCS and !
others, the section says what factors should be considered in determining whether the area surrou'nding the site is " amenable" to emergency u
\
planning. .
1 Section 52.18 now makes clear that need for power is not a '
consideration at the early site permit stage.
t In a number of places -- 99 52.23, 52.53, 52.87, and portions of .
other sections -- the rule provides explicitly for ACRS review of issues ;
to make clear that, even though the Atomic Energy Act does not, in terms, give the ACRS a role in the granting of early site permits., design certifications, or combined licenses, the ACRS is to have the same role with respect to these devices that it does with respect to construction permits, operating licenses, and the like. Wherever the ACRS is spoken of in Part 52, the intention is that 'the ACRS review the pertinent issues according to the standards specified therein.
. I 47-j.
As in the proposed rule, ! 52.25 provides that'the holder.of an early site permit which contains a site redress plan or the applicant for a construction permit or combined license which references such an early site permit, may perform the activities at the site allowed by 10 !
CFR50.10(e)(1)withoutfirstobtainingtheseparateauthorization required by 6 50.10. The New York State Energy Office appears to take .
this to mean that the holder of the pe.nnit may perform such work ~without NR_C approval. To the contrary, the early site permit which contains a redress plan is itself such approval. The law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, ,
Leiby & MacRae, representing several utilities, argues that recent case j law, especially NRDC v. EPA, 859 F,2d 156 (D.C. Cir.19.88), calls into 4 question the Commission's limitations on non-safety related construction'
.before , issuance.of a permit. LeBoeuf, Lamb concludes that i 52.25 and
. related portions of Part 52, should be deleted and the limitations in 6 50.10' reviewed in the light of the case law. The Office of the General Counsel is undertaking such a review and will recommend to the Commission if any changes to these sections are warranted. In the meantime, the -
Commission has decided to keep Part 52's provisions on site work intact and consistent with the related provisions in Part 50.
l Section 52.27 now contains some of the material which appeared in i !
52.29 of the proposed rule. OCRE objects to the provision in i 52.27 which treats an early site permit as valid beyond the date of expiration j in proceedings based on applications which have referenced the eisrly site permit. OCRE argues that this provision allows clever applicants to !
avoid new site requirements by referencing an early site permit just before it expires. At bottom, this is really an argument that early site
-<_--_-.m__ _ _ _ _ _ _ -__m______ m_
48 permits should have shorter durations. The Comm1ssion is confident that the agency will be able to make site judgments which will retain their validity for the du ations provided for in the final rule. However, the i final rule does provide that the duration of an original permit can be i
fixed at a term shorter than twenty years. See i 52.27(a).
In its comment on 5 52.31, LeBoeuf, Lamb s'uggests that at renewal, !
the burden should be on the Commission to show why an early site permit should not be renewed, but that a given permit should be renewed only once, and for not more than ten years. The final rule retains the provisions of the proposed rule, because they provide more flexibility to both the Commission and holders of permits.
Much of the discussion. in Section II.1.f. and II.3.b. a,bove on the finality of design certifications and hearings after construction is relevant to the provisions in i 52.39 on the finality of early site permits. Section 52.39 now states that, except in certain limited circumstances, issues resolved in a proceeding on an early site permit shall be treated as resolved in any later proceeding on an application which references the early site permit. One of the circumstances involves petitions under 10 CFR 2.206 that the tenns of the early site l permit should be modifi'ed; section 52.39(a)(2)(iii) assumes that the Director shall resolve the issues raised by the petition in accordance with the standard in paragraph (a)(1) of the same section.
e 1 !;
l
l 49
. 1
- 2. Design Certifications
.In the proposed rule, 5 52.45 contained material on scope of design and testing of prototypes. This material now appears, in modified form, in i 52.47.
In 9 52.47, the provisions on testing of prototypes'have been reworded to avoid' suggesting a presumption that designs of the affected class could be certified only after successful testing of a prototype.
i One indivicual-and the U. S. Metric Association urged that the rule :
require that technical information in applications be in metric units. i The NRC staff believes there is much merit in this proposal, but because '
. the public has not had an opporunity,to comment on it, it is not !
incorporated in the final rule. The NRC staff is considering' proposing j an amendment to Part 52 on the subject for Commission review.
On is 52.53, 52.54, 52.55, and 52.63, see the remarks in Section III.1. above on $$ 52.23, 52.24, 52.27, and 52.39, respectively.
- 3. Combined Licenses I
The last sentence of 5 52.75 of the proposed rule now appears in 6 52.79 of the final rule.
00E' proposes redrafting 5 52.79 to require that no application for a combined license be considered unless it references a certified design.
The final rule does not contain this restriction because there may be
50 circumstances in which a combined license would properly utilize a 1
- non-standard design, and because such a restriction, would mean, among other things, that every prototype would have to be licensed in a fully two-step process. In connection with i 52.79's provisions on submission J l
of complete emergency plans NIRS somehow concludes that Subpart C's l l
provisions on emergency planning " extend", to the detriment of state and ,
I local governments, the " realism
- doctrine set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and recently affirmed in Coninonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC, 856 F.2d 378 i
(1stCir.1988). Apparently, NIRS believes that to settle emergency :
planning issues before construction is to " extend" the doctrine. To the contrary,'although Subpart C assumes the " realism" doctrine, as it is entitled to do, it does not extend it. The doctrine remains precisely what it is in i 50.47. Moreover, the Commission's aim in drafting SubpartC'sprovisionsonemergencyplafninghas'beentofollowtothe '
maximum feasible extent the National Governors' Association's j Recommendation, at its 79th annual meeting, in 1987, that "... emergency plans should be approved by the NRC before it issues the construction pennit for any new nuclear power plant."
Section52.83nowprovidesthattheintialtermofacombineq license shall not exceed forty years from the date on which the Commission makes the findings reouired by 9 52.103(c).
l On 5 52.87, see the discussion in Section III.1. on 5 52.23.
- l. .
- NUMARC proposed removing from 9 52.89 any reference to design certifications, on the grounds that environmental impact statements i
.- .... .51 !
. a should not be prepared in connection with certification rulemakings. The l l
references in this sectio ~n to' design certifications are not' meant to j
imply that environmental impact statements must be prepared in connection with design certifications.
Section 52.99 has been reworded to reflect more clearly that the inspection carried out during construction under a combined license will be based on the tests, inspections, analyses, and related acceptance criteria contained in the combined license. Several industry commenters proposed adding to this section a requirement that the staff prepare.an inspection plan in connection with each combined license. However, such a requirement would be largely duplicaMve of a long-standing staff '
~
practice under'which the staff prepares an annual inspection plan which alloca,tes resources according to the priorities among all pending ,
i inspection tasks. The annual plan should assure the timel'iness of inspections of construction under a combined license. Section 52.99 >
envisions a " sign-as-you-go" process in which the staff signs off on inspection units and notice of the staff's sign-off is published in the Federal Register. UCS says that it is " totally inappropriate" for the 3 1
Commission, while construction is going on, to sign off on inspections and thus'put matters beyond dispute which might otherwise be raised after construction is complete. However, UCS has misunderstood the Commission's role in the inspection process. While construction is going on, only the staff signs off on inspections. The Comission makes no
. findings with respect to construction until construction is complete.
Section 52.99 has been modified to make this point more clearly.
i
_ __ - _ _ - - - - - - - _ .- i
> 52 UCS and other commenters object to the section in.I 52.103 of the proposed rule which provided interested persons thirty days after notice of proposed authorization of operation in which to request a hearing on the specified grounds. Yet the thirty-day r,equirement was drawn from section 189a of the Act. Neither the Act nor Part 52 imagine that it would be acceptable for interested persons to wait until notice is ,
received before they examine the record of construction. Such time periods are like the sixty-day limit in the Hobbs Act, 28'U.S.C. 2344, for petitions for direct judicial review of an agency rule. These limits assume that the petitioner is familiar with the fundamentals of the record before the limited period begins. The limited period is then .
provided for consideration of options, consultation with other interested persons, and drafting of pleadings. In any event..the final rul,e
~
provides sixty day,s, in con' sideration of the pleading standard 9.52:103 imposes on petitioners. Moreover, as ncted above, to assist interested persons in becoming familiar with the construction record 9 52.99 now provides that notice of staff approvals of construction will be published
' periodically in the Federal Register. Finally, Urenco, Inc., is concerned that the last subsection of 9 52.103 not be taken to suggest that the Commission would have to make separate findings #or each of the l numerous " modules" of a gaseous diffusion facility. The issue of how the 1 ,
modules of a gaseous diffusion facility should be licensed is beyond the l scope of this rulemaking and therefore cannot suggest that the Commission would have to make separate findings for each of the mooules of'such a
, facility.
o REPLICATE PLANT CONCEPT In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Comission published a revised policy statement on replication of plants and invited coment on the revised policy. Sea 5? FR 32067, col. 3, to 32068, col. 1. Several industry comenters remark e t' the statement's requirement that the ,
application for replicat%. De submitted within five years of the date of issuance of the staff safety evaluation report for the base plant effectively made replication unt.vailable for the short term. They recomended removing the restriction, or at least lengthening it. The Comission has decided to retain this restriction. The five-year figure is in fact already a lengthening of the analogous figure in the imediately preceding version of the policy statement. The restriction is a reflection of the Comission's belief that applications which reach back further than a given number years probably ought to be considered as custom-plant applications.
Policy on Replication The replicate plant concept involves an application by a utility for a license to construct or operate one or more nuclear power plants of essentially the same design as one already licensed.
The design of the plant already licensed (termed the base plant design) may be replicated at both the construction permit and operating license stages, and in applications for combined construction permits and eperating licenses in a one-step licensing process. Replication of an approved base plant design at the construction permit stage is a f
+-
- 54 prerequisite for its replication at the operating license stage.
Although replication of the base plant design at the operating license stage is not mandatory, that is, the operating license application may be submitted as a custom plant application, it is strongly recommended.
An application for a replicate plant must demonstrate compliance with the four licensing requirements for new plant designs as set forth .
in the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement (50 Fed. Reg. 32138; August 8,1985).
Each application proposing to replicate a previously licensed plant will be subjected to a qualification review to determine the acceptability of the base plant for replication and to define specific matters that mW t be addressed in the application for the replicate plant. A further requirement.for qualification is that the application
,' for a ' replicate plant must be submitted within five years of the dat~e of -
issuance of the staff safety evaluation report for the base plant. 'The qualification review will consider the following information:
(1) The arrangement made with the developers of the base plant design for its replication; (2) The compatibility of the base plant design with the characteristics of the site proposed for the replicate plant; (3) A description of any changes to the base plant design, with justification for the changes; (4) The status of any matters identified for the base plant design in the safety evaluation report, or subseou'ently identified by the ACRS or during the public hearings on the base plant application as requiring later resolution; l
55 4
(5) Identific'ation of the major contractors, with justification for the acceptability of any that are different than those used by the base plant applicant; and (6) A discussion of how the replicate plant design will conform to any changes to the Commission's regulations which have become effective since the issuance of the license for the base plant. .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -- CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION q The final rules amend the procedures currently found in Part 50 and its appendices for the filing and reviewing of applications for construction permits, operating licenses, early site reviews, and
~
standard design approvals. As such they meet the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). That section applies to "[a]mendments to ... Part[] 50 ... which relate to (i) procedures for filing and reviewing applications for licenses or construction permits or other forms of permission ... ." As the Commission explained in promulgating this exclusion, "[a]lthough amendments of this type affect substantive parte of the Commission's regulations, the amendments themselves relate solely to matters of procedure. [They] ... do not have an effect on the environment."
49 Fed. Reg. 9352, 9371, col. 3 (March 12, 1984) (final environmental protection regulations).6 Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR $ 51.22(b), no O
It makes no s bstantive difference for the purpose of the categorical exclusion that the amendments are in a new Part 52 rather than in Part 50. The amendments are, in fact, amendments to the Part 50 procedures and could have been placed in that part.
l
}
f
. 56 1
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment neeo be
] 1 prepared in connection with these final rules.7 l PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT The final rule contains information requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 9 3501 et seq.). These i; requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3150(b)- .
0 i
s REGULATORY ANALYSIS s
As . presently constituted, the. American population of nuclear power ,
reactors consists largely of one-of-a~-kind desi'gns. Experience has' '
shown that the highly individualistic character of this population has q consumed enormous rm ources in the processes of design, construction, and 1
7 The requirements concerning testing of full-size prototypes of advanced reactors, see i 52.47, may appear not to fit into the category excluded by 6 51.22(c)(3), since to comply with the requirements, an applicant may have to build and test a prototype plant, an act clearly with an environmental impact. Nonetheless, 9 52.47 is eligible for exclusionunders51.22(c)(3). Unlike, for instance, the promulgation of
, a safety rule which applies to operatng plants, the formal action of promulgating 5 52.47 has only a potential impact on the environment.
That impact becomes actual only if a designer chooses to pursue certification of a certain kind of advanced design. Under the present circumstances, no mean,ingful environmental assessment or impact statement can be made. Cf. 49 FR at 9372, cols. 2-3 (entering into an agreement with a State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act has no immediate !
or meisurable environmental impact and therefore warrants a categorical exclusion). The issuance of the construction permit and operating license for a prototype plant would, of course, be a major federal action with a significant impact on the e'nvironment, and would entail the preparatich of an environmental impact statement. Cf. id., col. 3 (the (Footnote Continued)
57 4
safety review. Since, typically, design of a plant was not complete when '
construction of it began, many safety questions were not resolved until late in the licensing proceeding for that plant. Such late resolution of questions introduced great uncertainty into proceedings, since the process of resolution often entailed lengthy safety reviews, construction delays, and backfits. Moreover, the low incidence of duplication among .
designs has meant that experience gained in the construction and operation of a given plant has often not been useful in the construction and operation of any other plant, and has made the generic resolution of continuing safety issues more complicated.
In the face of this experience with a population of unique plants, there have long been fundamentally only three alternatives for Commission action, the last two of them not mutually exclusive: either make no effort to bring about an increased degree of standardization, or propose legislation on standardization, or enact by rulemaking as much of a scheme for promoting standardization as the Comission's current statutory authority permits. The Commission has for some time concluded against the first alternative, having decided that a substantial increase in standardization would enhance the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants and require fewer resources in safety reviews of plants, and that the Comission should have in place provisions for the review of l
l standardized designs and other devices for assuring early resolution of I 1 safety questions. The Commission has therefore pursued standardization j
, (Footnote Continued) l l States must prepare detailed environmental analyses before they license l l certain activities). j 1
1 l
l 1
,- 58'
. .q
'both by proposing legislation - without success -- and by promulgating rules,'in.particular Appendices M N, and 0 to Part 50 (now Part 52) of 10 CFR. Lacking legislation on standardization, the Commission believes that the most suitable' alternative for encouraging further i e
standardization is to fill out and expand the Commission's regulatory schemefoi'standardizationandearlyresolutionofsafetyissues.
Therefore, the Commission now promulgates a new set of regulations, l
to be placed in a new part in 10 CFR, Part 52. This new part facilitates the early resolution of safety issues by providing for f pre-construction-permit approval of power plant sites, Commission ;
certification of standardized designs, and the issuance of licenses which ,
combine' permission to construct a plan.t with a conditional permission to operate it once construction of it has been suc'cessfully completed. l Ideally, a future applicarit will reference an approved site and 4 i i
certified design in an application for a combined license, thus obviating the need for an extensive review of the application and construction.
The. provision in Part 52 for Commission certification of designs has the additional objective of encouraging the use of standardized designs, thereby adding to the benefits of early resolution the safety benefits of accumulated experience and the economic benefits of economies of scale and transferable experience. .
Quantification of the costs 'and benefits of this rulemaking is probably not possible. Much depends on the extent to which the industry pursues standardization. Clectly, if the Corrmission and' the industry spend the resources necessary to certify a score of designs and then no l
-_-___- - __ . - - - - -_ - - - _ _ 1
. 8
~
. . - 59 j
e '
applicant references any of them,. those resources will have been largely q wasted.. On the other hand, it is just as! clear thatLif a score of plants l uses'a single certified design, there will have.been a great saving of
- the resources of the industry, the agency, and the. interested public. i alike. -To be added to the uncertainties' surrounding the industry's j
. response, there are also uncertainties concerning the costs of the ,
certification process, and the costs of developing the designs
- themselves, especially the advanced designs, which may require testing of prototypes. However, ifLthe industry finds it in its interest to proceed with the development of nuclear power, there_is every reason to expect l
that the safety and economic benefits"of standardization will far outweigh.the upfront costs of design and Commission certification: i
~
Review time for applications for. licenses will be drastically reduced,
- the public brought into the process before construction', construction
~
times shortened, ec'onomies of scale created, reliability of plant-performance increased, maintenance made easier, qualified vendor support .
made easier to maintain, and, most important, safety enhanced.
I Thus, the rationale for proceeding with this rulemaking: There is
.1 no absolute assurance that certified designs will in fact be used by the utilities; hcwever, it is certain that if the reasonably expected benefits of standardization are to be gained, then the Commission must have the procedural mechanisms in place for review of applications for early site approvals, design certifications, and combined licenses. The most fundamental choice is, of course, the industry's, to proceed or not with standardization, according to its own weighing of costs and
--.--------__.-________.m..___ --
.- 60 !
.l i
benefits. But the Connission must be ready to perform its review
, responsibilities if the industry chooses standardization.
, 1 a
7 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT CERTIFICATION 1
The final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will reduce the procedural l burden on NRC licensees by improving the reactor licensing process.
Nuclear power plant licensees .do not fall within the definition of sme.ll businesses in Section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. 0 632, the i e Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121, or the Comission's Size Standards published at 50 FR >
!iO241 (Dec. 9, 1985). The impact on interveners or potential interveners will be neutral. For the'most part, the final rule will affect the '
timing of hearings rather than the scope of issues to be heard. For i example, many site and design issues will be considered earlier, in connection with the issuance of an early site permit or standard design certification, rather than later, in connection with a facility licensing proceeding. Similarly, a combined license proceeding will include consideration of many of the issues that woulo ordinarily be deferred until the operating license proceeding. Thus, the timing rather than the 4
cost of participating in NRC licensing proceedings will be affected.
Interveners may experience some increased preparation costs if they seek to reopen previously decided issues because of the increased showing that will be required. Once a hearing commences, however, an intervenor s costs should be decreased because the issues will be more clearly. defined than under existing practice. Therefore, in accordance with the
- f . l f, f Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 6 605(b), the Comission f.
hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on. a substantial number of small entities and that, therefore, a - !
regulatory flexibility analysis need not be' prepared. - '
BACXFIT ANALYSIS This rule does not modify or add to the systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the-design approval or manufacturing ~ license for a facilityt or the procedures or organization required to. cons'truct or operate a facility. However, it could be argued that this rule modifies ~and adds to the procedures or organization ,
i required to. design a facility, since the rule adds'to, or else at least spells out, the requirements for a'pplicants for design certifications.
Moreover, th'e rule, at the very least, substantially modifies the expectations of anyone who had hoped to apply for a design certification i under the previously existing section 7 of Appendix 0, particularly of l
any such who presently hold preliminary or final design approvals under j that Appendix.
Nontheless, the Comission believes that the backfit rule does not apply to this rule and, therefore, that no backfit analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.109(c) is required for this rule. The backfit rule wa's not intended to apply to every action which substantially changes settled i
expectations'. Clearly, the backfit rule would not apply to a rule which ,
would impose more stringent requirements cn all future applicants for construction permits, even though such a rule arguably might have an i
I L_ _ - - - - - - -
e 62 O
adverse impact on a person who was considering applying for a pecmit but had not done so yet. In this latter case, the backfit rule protects the construction permit holder, not the prospective applicant, or even the present applicant. The final rule below is of the character of such a hypothetical rule. The final rule arguably imposes more stringent requirements for design certification and thereby may have an adverse .
impact on some persons. hiwever, the effects of the final rule will be largely prospective, and the rule does not require any preseat holder of a design approval (no , person holds a design certification) to meet new stardards in order to remain in possession of such an approval.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 52 Admin'istrative' practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfifting, Combined -
license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 6 553, the Commission is adding to 10 CFR Chapter I a new Part 52: {
e j l
63 PART 52 - EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; i AND COMBINED. LICENSES F9 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS General Provisions l
Sec.
52.1 Scope.
52.3 Definitions.
52.5 Interpretations.
52.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
Subpart A - Early Site Permits 52.11 Scope of subpart.
52.13 Relationship to Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 2 and Appendix Q of this part.
52.15 Filing of applications.
52.17 Contents of applications.
52.18 Standards for review of applications.
. 52.19 Permit and renewal fees.
52.21 Hearings.
52.23 Referral to the ACRS.
52.24 Issuance of early site permit. l 52.25- Extent of activities permitted.
52.27 Duration of permit. i 52.29 . Application for renewal. ;
. 52.31- Criteria for renewal . l 52.33 Duration of renewal. .
52.35 Use of site for other purposes. !
52.37 Reporting of defects and noncompliance; revocation, suspension, i modification of permits for cause. !
52.39' Finality of early site permit determinations. !
Subpart B - Standard Design Certifications 52.41 Scop 6 of subpart.
. 52.43 Relationship to Appendices M, N, and 0 of this part.
52.45 Filing of applications.
l 52.47 Contents of applications.
52.49 Design certification and renewal fees.
52.51 Administrative review of applications.
l 52.53 Referral to the ACRS.
l 52.54 Issuance nf standard design certification.
i 52.55 Duration of certification.
52.57 Application for renewal.
52.59 Criteria for renewal .
52.61 Duration of renewal.
52.63 Finality of standard design certifications. .
i 1 .
l l
'd
. 64 Subpart.C_- Combined Licenses
- 52.71 Scope of subpart. !
52.73 Relationship to Subparts A and B.
52.75 Filing of applications. . ,
52.77 Contents of applications; general information. j 52.79 Contents of applications; technical information.
.. 52.81 Standards for review of applications.
52.83 Applicability of Part 50 provisions.
52.85 Administrative review of applications.
52.87 Referral to the ACRS. .
52.89 Environmental review.
~
52.91 Authorization to conduct site activities.
52.93 Exemptions and variances.
52.97 Issuance of combined licenses.
52.99 Inspection during construction.
52.101 Pre-operational antitrust review. !
52.103 Operation under a combined license.
Authority: Secs 103, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); sees. 201, 202, 206, ,t 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended -
(42U.S.C.5841,5842,5846).
+
6 g s
^
l I
1 L
f e
4-
, 65-GENERAL PROVISIONS 9 52.1 Scope.
i This part governs the issuance of early site permits, standard design. certifications, and combined construction permits and conditional . i
. l operating licenses for nuclear power facilities licensed under Section 103 or 1,04b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 919), )
and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).
5 52.3 Definitions. I l
As used in this part,. -
(a) " Combined license" means'a combined construction permit and conditional operating license for a ntJclear power facility issued pursuant to Subpart C of this part.
(b) "Early site permit" means a Commission approval, issued ,
pursuant to Subpart A of this part, for a site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities.
(c) " Standard design" means a design which is sufficiently detailed and complete to support certification in accordance with Subpart B of this part. and which is usable for a multiple number of units or at a multiple numbt.r of sites without reopening or repeating the review.
(d) " Standard design certification", " design certification", or
" certification" means a' Commission approval, issued pursuant to
)
Subpart B of this part, of a standard design for a nuclear power
.____.m.__ _ _ _ _ _ ____.____m_.
'1
< ~66 facility. A design so a'oproved may be referred to as a " certified standard design".
(e) 'All other terms in this part have the meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2, or Section 11 of'the Atomic Energy Act, as applicable.
~ 6'52.5 Interpretations. -
Except as specifically authorized by the Comission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Comission other than.a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Comission.
5 52.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has submitted the '
information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as-reauired by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501,-et seq.). OMB has approved the 4 information collection requirements contained in this part under control
, number 3150(b)--.
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in 55 52.15, 52.17, 52.29, 52.45, 52.47, 52.57, 52.75, 52.77 mand 52.79.
b
- 67 l .
SUBPART A - EARLY SITE PERMITS l
9 52.11 Scope of subpart.
1 I
This subpart sets out the requirements and procedures applicable to l Commission issuance of early site permits for approval of a site or -
sites for one or more nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility.
5 52.13 Relationship to Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 2 and Appendix 0 of (
this part.
~
The proce,dures of this subpart do not replace those set out in. ' ,
Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 2 or Appendix 0 of this part. Subpart F applies only wheri early review of site suitability issues is sought in connection with an application for a permit to construct certain power facilities. Appendix Q applies only when NRC staff review of one or more site suitability issues is sought separately from and prior to the submittal of a construction permit. A Staff Site Report issued under Appendix Q in no way affects the authority of the Comission or the presiding officer in any proceeding under Subparts F or G of 10 CFR Part
- 2. Subpart A applies when eny person who may apply for a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 or for a combined license under 10 CFR Part 52 seeks an early site permit from the Commission separately from an app,lication for a construction permit or a combined license for a facility.
l
a f 68 )
9 92.15 Filing of. applications. ,
(a) Any person who may apply for a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50, or for a combined license under 10 CFR Part 52, may file' I with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an application for an, i
early site permit. An application for an early site permit may be filed . ,
i notwithstanding the fact that an application for a construction permit !
i or a combined license has not been filed in connection with the site on-1 sites for which a permit is sought.
(b) The application must Comply With the filing requirements of 1
10 CFR 50.30(a), (b), and (f) as they would apply to an application-for a construction permit. The following portions of 6 50.4, which is ,
referenced by 50.30(a)(1), are applicable: paragraphs (a), (b)(1)-(3), - !
-(c),(d),a"nd(e).
5 52.17 Contents of applications.
l 1
(a)(1) The application must contain the information required by f 10 CFR 50.33(a)-(d), the first three sentences of 50.3a(a)(1), and, to the extent approval of emergency plans is sought under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) below, the 1.1 formation required by 50.33(g) and (j), and ;
I 50.34(b)(6)(v). In particular, the application should describe the following:
(i) the number, type, and thermal power level of the facilities for !
which the site may be used; (ii) the boundaries of the site; (iii) the proposed general location of each facility on the site; i
I 69 i 1
(iv) the anticipated maximum levels of radiological .and thermal- I effluents each facility will produce; (v) the type of cooling systems, intakes, and outflows that may be associated with each facility; ,
(vi) the seismic, meteorological, hydrologic, and geologic !
I characteristics of the proposed site (see Appendix A to 10 CFR ,
Part 100);
I (vii) the location and description of any nearby industrial, military, or transportation facilities and routes; and (viii) the existing and projected future population profile of the area surrounding the site. -
(2) A comolete environmental report as required by 10 CFR 51.45 l
and 51.50 shall be included in the application, provided, however, that.
such environmental report.shall focus on the e' environmental eff'ects of
- f
. construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, which have !
characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters, and provided further that the report need not include an assessment of the ,
benefits (for example, need for power) of the proposed action, but shall include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is ,
any obviously superior alternative to the site proposed, a
-)
(b)(1) The application must provide information sufficient to show l that the area surrounding the site is amenable to emergency planning which would provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective l measures could be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the site, given the characteristics of the site and the probable emergency planning zones surrounding the site; such characteristics include, but in particular cases would not necessarily be limited to, the topography
.___________________.m.______ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.70 7
'and meteorology of the planning zones; the projected future population profile of the planning zones; land use inside the planning zones; the sheltering capacity and sheltering effectiveness of buildings in the ;
plume emergency planning zon'e; and potential routes for evacuation out I of the plume emergency planning zone. -
'(2) The application may also either , 1 (i) Propose emergency planning parameters for review and approval ,
by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the parameters l
)
may include such matters as the exact size and shape of the emergency planning zones, or the resources required for sheltering or evacuation; conformance with these parameters by the emergency plans submitted by an applicant for a combined license or an operating license will be sufficient 'to show the acceptability of the plans, with' respec.t to the j emergency planning requirements reflected in the parameters; or (ii) Propose complete emergency plans for review and approval by .
the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in accord with the !
applicable provisions of 10 CFR 50.47.
Under paragraphs (1) and (2)(i) of this subsection, the application ,
must include a description of any contacts and arrangements made with ,
local, state, and federal governmental agencies with emergency planning ;
responsibilities. Under the option set' forth in paragraph (2)(ii) of l this sOsection, the applicant shall make good faith efforts to, obtain from the same governmental agencies certifications (i) that the proposed emergency plans are practicable, (ii) that these agencies are committed to participating in any further development of the plans, including any required field demonstrations, and (iii) that these agencies are coninitted to executing their responsibilities under the plans in the l
= 1
.,- 71 event of an emergency. The application must contain any certifications-l
~
that have been obtained. If these certifications cannot be obtained, 'l the application must contain information, including a' utility plan,
. sufficient to show that the proposed plans. nonetheless provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the site. ,
(c) If the applicant wishes to be able to perform, after grant of the early site pt.rml?, the activities at the' site allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first obtaining the separate authorization required" j by that section, the application must propose, for inclusion,in the early site permit, a plan for redress of the site in the event that such activities are performed and the site permit expires before it is referenced in an application for a construction permit or a combined l
license issued under Subpart C of this part. The' application must l demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that redress carried out under the plan will achieve an environmentally stable and aesthetically l acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use may conform with local zoning laws in effect at permit expiration. ,
i 5 52.18 Standards for review of applications.
Applications filed under this subpart will be reviewed according to l the applicable standards set out in 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices and Part 100 as they apply to applications for construction permits for nuclear power plants. In particular, the Commission shall prepara an environmental impact statement during review of the application, in
. \
accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 51, provided,
a.
.t- .
.however, that the draft and final environmental impact statements prepared by the Comission shall focus on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that' fall within the postulated site parameters, and l provided further that the statements need not include an assessment of the benefits (for example, need for power) of the proposed action, but .
I shall include an evaluation of alternative sites to~ determine whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the site proposed. The Commission shall determine, after consultation with the Federal !
Emergency Management Agency, whether the information required of the applicant by i 52.17(b)(1) shows that the area surrounding the site is I amenable to emergency planning which would provide reosonable assurance i
that adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the site, whether any emergency planning-parameters submitte'd by' the applicant under s 52.17(b)(2)(i) are sufficient to determine the adequacy of any portion of an emergency plan I which conforms to the parameters, and whether any emergency plans submitted by the applicant under 6 52.'17(b)(2)(ii) provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radinlegical emergency.
9 52.19 Permit and renewal fees.
I The fees charged for the review of an application for the initial j l
issuance or renewal of an early site permit are set forth in 10 CFR l 170.21, together with a schedule for their deferred recovery. There is no application fee.
l
,9
,. , 73 t
- i. . . , .
5 52.21 Hearings. -
i An early site permit is a partial construction permit and is therefore. subject to all procedural requirements in 10 CFR Part 2 which' are applicable to construction permits, including the requirements for docketing in 55 2.101(a)(1)-(4), and the requirements for issuance of a ,
notice of hearing in 95 2.104(a), (b)(1)(iv) and (v), (b)(2) to the extent it runs parallel .to (b)(1)(iv) and (v), and (b)(3), provided that I the designated sections shal.1 not be construed to require that the environmental report or draft or final environmental impact statement include an assessment of the. benefits of*the proposed action. In the hearing, the presiding officer shall also determine whether, taking into l
- consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR Part; 100, a reactor, l or reactors, having dharacteris. tics that fall within the parimeters for l the site can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the I
health and safe *y of the public. . All hearings conducted on applications for early site permits filed under this part are governed by the.
orocedures contained in Subpart G of Part 2.
5 52.23 Referral to the ACRS.
The Commission shall refer a copy of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS shall report ;
on those portions of the application which concern safety.
4
74 .
I i
9 52.24- Issuance of early site permit.-
After conducting a hearing under 6 52.21 of this .subpart and receiving the report to be submitted by the Advisory Committee on
~
Reactor S5feguards under 9 52.23 of this subpart, and upon determining that an application for an early site permit meets the applicable -
r standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's j i
regulations, and that notifications, if any, to.other agencies or. bodies have been duly made, the Commission shall issue an early site permit, in ,
i such form and containing such conditions and limitations, as the (
.l Commission deems appropriate and necessary. ;
's 52.25' Ext'ent of activities permitted.
j 1
(a) If an early site permit contains a site redress plan, the holder of the permit, or the applicant for a construction permit or j combined license who references the permit, may perform the activities [
at the site allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first obtaining the separate authorization required by that section, provided that the final l l
. environmental impact statement prepared for the permit has concluded ,
. that such activities will not result in any significant adverse 1
environmental impact which cannot be redressed.
(b) If the activities permitted by paragraph (a) of this section !
I are performed at any site for which an early site permit has been I granted, and the site is not referenced in an application for a construction permit a combined l'icense issued under Subpart C of this l
part while the permit remains valid, then the early site permit shall l
l u__________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
l
\
.' 75 -l l l
' remain in effect solely for the purpose of site redress, and the holder of the permit must redress the site in accordance with the terms of the j
site redress plan required by 6 52.17(c). If, before redress is complete, a use not envisaged in the redress plan is found for the site or parts thereof, the holder of the permit shall carry out the redress ;
plan to the greatest extent possible consistent with the alternate use. ,
6 52.27 Duration of pennit.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, an early site permit issued tinder this subpart shall be valid for not less than :
ten nor more than twenty years from the date of issuance.
(b)(1) An early site permit continues to be valid beyond the date
'of expirat.iori 1.n any proceeding on a coristruction permit applic'ation or a combined license application which references the early site oermit i and is docketed either before the date of expiration of tha early site permit, or, if a timely application for renewal of the permit has been filed, before the Commission has determined whether to renew the permit.
(2) An early site permit also continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any proceeding on an operating license application which is based on a construction pemit which references the early site permit, and in any hearing held under 6 52.103 of this part before operation begins under a combined license which references the early site permit.
(c) An applicant for a construction permit or combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a site for which an early site permit application has been occketed but not granted.
P .
. 76 -
. 5 52.29 Application for renewal.
! l (a) Not less than twelve nor more than- thirty-six months prior to l the end of the initial twenty-year period, or any later renewal period, the permit holder may apply for a renewal of the permit. An application I
for renewal must contain all information necessary to bring up to date ,
the information an.d data contained in the previous application.-
(b) Any person whose interests may be affected by renewal of the-permit may request a hearing on the application for renewal. The request for a hearing must comply with 10 CFR 2.714. If a hearing is granted, notice of the hearing will be published in accordance with
- 10 CFR 2.703.
(c) An early site permit, either original or ranewed, for which a timely application for renewal has been filed, remains in effect until the Comission has determined whether to renew the permit. If the permit is not renewed, it continues to be valid in certain proceedings in accordance with the provisions of 5 52.27(b) of this subpart.
(d) The Commission shall refer a copy of the application for renewal to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS shall report on those portions of the application which concern safety and shall apply the criteria set forth in 6 52.31 of this subpart.
b i 52.31 Criteria for renewal. >
(a) The Commission shall orant the renewal if the Commission determines that the site complies with the Atomic Energy Act and the
i
,'- 77
- .9 l l
Commission's regulations and orders applicable and in effect at the time )
of the renewal, and any new requirements the Commission may wish to impose after a determination that there is a substantial increase in I overall protection of the public health'and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from th6 new requirements and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation of those requirements are justified .
in view of this increased protection. '
(b) A denial of renewal on this basis does not bar the permit holder or' another applicant from filing a new application for the site which proposes changes to the site or the way in which it is used which correct the deficiencies cited in the denial of the renewal.
< 0 52.33 Duratjon of renewal. .
Each renewal of an early site permit shall be for not less than ten nor more than twenty years.
$ 52.35 Use of site for other purposes.
A site for which an early site permit has been issued under this
! subpart may be used for purposes other than those described in the permit, including the location' of other types of energy facilities. The permit holder shall inform the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of f any significant uses for the site which have not been approved in the ~
early site permit. The information about the activities must be given to the Director in advance of any actual construction or site modification for the activities. The information provided cculd be the
,' 78
..e basis for imposing new requirements on the permit, in accordance with '
l the provisions of 9 52.39 of this part. If the permit holder informs the Director that the holder no longer intends to use the site for a l nuclear power plant, the Director shall terminate the permit.
9 52.'o 7 Rooorting of defects and noncompliance; revocation, suspension, .
mot <fication of permits for cause. !
For purposes of Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.100, an early site permit is a construction permit. -
6 52.39 Finality of early site permit determinations. .,
(a)(1) Notwithstan. ding any provision in 10 CFR 50.109, while ~an early site permit is in effect under 9 52.27 or 52.33 of this subpart, 1
o the Commission may 'not impose new requirements, including new emergency planning requirements, on the early site permit or the site for wh.ich it was issued, unless the Commission determines that a modification is necessary either to bring the permit or the site into compliance with the Commission's regulations and orders applicable and in effect at the <
. tire the permit was issued, or to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
(2) In making the findings required for issuance of a construction permit, operating license, or combined license, or the findings required '
by 6 52.103 of this part, if the application for the construction permit, operating license, or combined licer.se references an early site q
{
^
l 79
~
permit, the Connission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved irr the proceeding on the application for issuance or renewal of the early site permit, unle contention is admitted that a reactor does not fit within one orrnore of the site parameters included in the site permit, h
or a petition'is filed which alleges either that the site is not in compliance with the terms of the early site permit, or that the terms ,
and conditions of the early site permit should be modified. l (i) A contention that a reactor'does not fit within one or more of the site parameters included in the site pennit may be litigated in'the same manner as other issues material to the proceading. i (ii) A petition which alleges that the site is not in compliance f with the terms of the early site permit must include, or clearly.
refere.nce, official NRC documents, documents prepared by or for the permit holder, or evidence admissible in a' proceeding under Subpart G of I
~
Part 2, which show, prima facie, that the acceptance crite'ria have,not !
been met. The permit holder and NRC staff may file answers to the petition within the time specified in 10 CFR 2.730 for answers to i motions by parties and staff. If the Commission in its judgment decides, on the basis of the petitions and any answers thereto, that the petition meets the requirements of this paragraph, that the issues are not exempt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 55a(a)(3), that genuine issues of material fact are raised, and that settlement or other infonnal resolution of the issues is not possible, then the genuine issues of material fact raised by the petition shall be, referred to an 1 Atomic Safety and Licer. sing Board for further proceedings in accord with Subpart G of Part 2.
I i
A_-__--------x-- - - - - _ _ - ,
,- 80 (iii) A petition which alleges that the terms and conditions of the early site permit should be modified will be processed in accgrd with 10 CFR 2.206. The Director shall grant or deny the petition before construction commences. If the petition is granted, then an order to modify the early site permit wi.11 be issued pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204.
Construction ur. der the construction permit or combined license will not ,
be affected by the granting of the petition unless the order to modify is made immediately effective pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204.
(iv) Prior to construction, the Commission shall find that the terms of the early site permit have been met.
(b) An applicant for a construction permit, operating license, or combined license who has filed an application referencing an early site permit issued under this subpart may include in the 6pplication a, req'est u for a variance from one or more elements of the permit. In determining whether to grant the variance, the Commission shall apply the same technically relevant criteria as were applicable to the application for the original or renewed site permit. Issuance of the variance shall be subject to litigation during the construction permit, operating license, or combined license proceeding in the same manner as other issues material to those proceedings.
1
a
. 81 i
SUBPART B - STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS i 52.41 Sc. ope of subpart.
This subpart sets out the requirements and procedures applicable to Commission issuance of rules granting standard design certifications for ,
nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility.
5 52.43 Relationship to Appendices M, N and 0 of this part.
(a) Appendix M to this part governs the issuance of licenses to
. manufacture nuclear power reactors to be installed and operated at sites not identified in the manufacturing license application. Appendix N governs licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of duplicate design at multiple sites. These appendices may be used independently of the provisions in this subpart unless the applicant also wishes to use a certified standard design approved under this ,
subpart.
(b) Appendix 0 governs the staff review and approval of preliminary and final standard designs. A staff approval under Appendix 0 in no way affects the authority of the Commission or the presiding afficer in any proceeding under Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2. Subpart B of Part 52 governs Commission approval, or certification, of standard deaigns by rulemaking.
(c) A final design approval under Appendix 0 is a prerequisite for certific.: tion of a standard design under this subpart. An application
82 for a final design approval must state whether the applicant intends to
+ . 1 seek certification of the. design. If the applicant does so intend, the 4
application for the final design approval must, in addition to containingithe information required by Appendix *0, comply with the N applicable requirements of Part 52, Subpart B, particularly 95 52.45 and 52.47. ,
6 52.45 Filing of applications.
i s
(a)(1) Any person may seek a standard design certification for an essentially complete nuclear power plant design which is an evolutionary change from light water reactor designs of plants which have been licensed and'in commercial operation before the effective date of this rule. .
'(2 ) Any person may also seek a standard design certification for a nuclear power plant design which differs significantly from the light water reactor designs described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or util'izes simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means to -
a accomplish its safety functions.
(b) An application for certification may be filed notwithstanding the fact that an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility has not been filed. ,
(c)(1) Because a final desfqn approval under Appendix 0 of this part is a prerequisite for certification of a standard design, a person
\ who seeks such a certification and does not. hold, or has not applied for,.a final design approval, shall file with the Director of Nuclear
\
s
83 l
Reactor Regulation an application for a final design approval and i
- \
certification.
. (2) Any person who seeks certification but already holds, or has applied for, a finsi design approval, also shall file with the Director 1
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an application for certification, because j l
the NRC staff may require that the information before the staff in ,
I connection with the review for the final design approval be supplemented for the review for certification. !
(d) The applicant must comply with the filing requirements of
~
10 CFR 50.30(a)(1)-(4), and (6) and 50.30(b)'as they would apply to an application for a nuclear power Pfant construction permit. The following portions of 5 50.4, which is referenced by 5 50.30(a)(1), are applicable to the extent technical.ly relevant: paragraphs (a); (b),
except for paragraph (6); (c); and (e).
5 52.47 Contents of applications.
(a) The requirements of this subsection apply,to all applications for design certification.
(1) An application for design certification must contain:
(i) The technical information which is required of applicants for construction permits or operating licenses by 10 CFR Part 20, Part 50 and its appendices, and Parts 73 and 100, and which is technically relevant to the desion and not site-specific; (ii) Demonstration of compliance with any technically relevant portions of the Three Mile Island requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(f);
I
____t______ _
,- 84 (iii) The site parameters postulated for the design, and.an analysis and evaluation of the design in terms of such parameters; .
(iv) Proposed technical resolutions of those. Unresolved, Safety i Issues and medium- and Bigh-priority Generic Safety Issues which are identified .in the version of'NUREG-0933 current on the date the design- I receives a final design approval and which are technically relevant to ,
the design; (v) A design-specific probabilistic risk assessment; (vi) Proposed tests, inspections, analyses and acceptance criteria )
which are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that, if the tests, inspections and analyses are performed and the acceptance ,
i criteria met, a plant which references the design is built and will l operate in ac Mrdance with the design certification. !l l
(vii) The interface req'uirements to be met b'y those portions'of the plant for which t'he application does not seek certification. These requirements must be sufficiently- detailed to allow completion of the final safety analysis and design-specific probabil.istic risk assessment required by paragraph (1)(v) of this subsection; )
(viii) Justification that compliance with the interface requirements of paragraph (1)(vii) of this subsection is v.erifiable through inspection, testing (either in the plant or elsewhere), or analysis. The method to be und for verification of interface requirements must be included s part of the proposed tests, inspections, analyses, and acceptance criteria required by paragraph (1)(vi) of this gubsection; and (ix) A representative conceptual design for those portions of tne l ,
plant for which the applicat;on does not seek certification, to aid the
J' 85 staff in its review of the final safety analysis and probabilistic risk assessment required by paragraph (1)(v) of this subsection, and to pennit assessment of the adequacy of the interface requirements called for by paragraph. (1)(vii) of this subsection.
i (2) The application must contain a level of' design information equivalent to that required for a final design approval under Appendix 0 .
of this part. The information submitted for a design certification must -
-l
. include performance requirements and design infonnation sufficiently
. detailed to permit the preparation of acceptance and inspection !
requirements by the NRC, and procurement and construction specifications by an applicant for a construction permit or a combined license. The information must be sufficient to enable the Commission ultimately to
~ judge the applicant's proposed means of assuring that construction conf'orms'to the design and to reach a final conclusion on al'1 safety i 1
I questions associated with the design before the certification is granted.
i (3) The staff shall advise the applicant on whether any technical ;
information beyond that required by this section'must be submitted. 1 (b) .The paragraphs of this subsection apply, according to their I
provisions, to particular applications:
(1) The application for certification of a nuclear power plant design which is an evolutionary change from light water reactor designs of plants which have been licensed and in commercial operation before the effective date of this rule must provide the complete scope of the l design except for site-specific elements such as the service water intake structure and the ultimate heat sink. I
{
f
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._. i
.l c -86 +
.~ ,
i (2)(i) Certification of a standard design which differs !
significantly from the light water reactor designs described in I i
paragraph (b)(1) of this section or utilizes simplified, inherent, .!
I passive, or other innovativ'e means to accomplish its saf'ety functions will be granted only if .
( A)(J,) The performance of each safety feature of the design has ,
been demonstrated through either analysis, appropriate test programs, experience, or a combination thereof; f
(2_) Interdependent effects among the safety features of the design have been found acceptable by analysis, appropriate test programs, experience, or a combination thereof;
(,3,,) Sufficient data exist on the safety features of the design.to assess the analytical tools used for sa'fety anal,yses over.a sufficient range of' normal operating con'ditions, transient conditions, and specified accident sequences, including equilibrium core conditions; and (4) The scope of the design is complete except for site-specific elements such as the service water intake structure and the ultimate heat sink; or (B) There has been acceptable testing of an appropriately sited, full-size, prototype of the design over a sufficient range of normal oparating conditions, transient conditions, and specified accident sequences, including equilibrium core conditions. If the criterion in paragraph (i)(A)(4_) of this subsection is not met, the testing of the
- l. prototype must demonstrate that the non-certified portion of the plant cannot significantly affect the safe operation of t e plant.
(ii) The application for final design approval of a standard design of the type described in this subsection must propose the l
, f '87 specific testing necessary to support certification of the design, whether the testing be prototype testing or the testing required in the alternative by paragrapt)s.(i)(A)(1) through (i)(A)(4) of this subsection. The Appendix 0 finol design approval of such a design must identify the specific testing' required for certification of the design.
(1) An application seeking certification of a modular design must ,
describe the various options for the configuration of the plant and site, including variations in, or sharing of, comon systems, interface requirements, and system interactions. The final safety analysis and the probabilistic risk assessment should also account for differences among the various options, including any restrictions which will be necessary during the construction and startup of a given module to j ensure ,the safe operation of any module already operating.
6 52.49 Fees for reviews of applications.
The fees charged for the review of an application for the initial issuance or renewal of a standard design certification are set out in 10 CFR 170.21, together with a schedule for their deferred recovery.
There is no application fee.
9 52.51 Administrative review of applicatie s.
A standard design certification is a rule that will be issued in accordance with the provisions of Subpart H of 10 CFR Part 2, as i
supplemented by the provisions of this section. The Commission shall I
)
initiate the rulemaking after an application has been filed under e
l
... 88 -
9 52.45 and shall specify the procedures to be used for the rulemaking.
l The rulemaking procedures must provide for notice and comment and an opportunity for an infonnal hearing before an Atomic Safety and
.Licens'ing Board. The procedures for the infonnal hearing must include the opportunity for written presentations made under oath or affirmation and for oral presentations and questioning if the Board finds' them ,
either necessary for the creation of an adequate record or the most expeditious way to resolve controversies. Ordinarily, the questioning in the informal hearing will be done by members of the Board, using either the Board's questions or questions submitted to the Board by the parties. The Board may also request authority from the Commission to use additional procedures, such as direct and cross examination by the parties, or may request tha.t the Commission convene a formal hearing ,
under Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2 on specific and substantial disptttes of fact, necessary for the Commission's decision, that cannot be resolved with sufficient accuracy except in a formal hearing. The staff will be a party in the hearing. Notwithstanding anything in 10 CFR 2.790 to the contrary, during the rulemaking, the treatment of proprietary information will be governed by the same criteria which govern the treatment of proprietary information submitted in connection with applications for construction permits and operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50, p.rovided that the design certification shall be published in Chapter I of this Title. The decision in such a hearing will be based only on information on which all parties have had an opportunity to coment either in response [o the notice of proposed rulemaking or in the informal hearing. .
l f
j
{-
b>
89 g ,
3 ;
, .)
9 52.53: Referral to the ACRS.. i T '
The Commission shall refer a copy of 'the application to the .
' 1 Advisory Consnittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS shall report l.
on those' portions of the application which concern safety.
I 52.54 Issuance of standard design certification.
After conducting a rulemaking proceeding under i 52.51 ofLthis part on an application for a standard design certification and receiving the report to be submitted by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards under 6 52.53 of this part, and upon determ.ining that the. application ;
meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act-and the Commission's regulations, the Commission s 1all issue a standard .
j design certification in the form of a rule for the design which is the ;
subject of the application.
6 52.55 Duration of certification.
I i
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this Section, a standard design certification issued pursuant to this subpart is valid for ten years.from the date of issuance.
(b) A standard design certification continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any proceeding on-ian application for a combined license or operating license which references the standard design certification and is docketed either before the date of expiration of the certification, or, if a timely application for renewal 4
___.___1__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J,. -
]
..' 90'
.v
}
of the ' certification has been filed, before the Comission has determined whether to renew the certification. A design certification j i
also continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any hearing j held under i 52.103 of this part before operation begins under a !
combined license which references the design certification, j
. i (c) An applicant for a construction permit or combined license -
may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a design certification application has been docketed but not granted. '
6 52.57 Application for tenewal. !
(a) Not less than twelve nor more than thirty-six months prior to
.{
expiration of the initial ten-year period, or any lat.er. rbnewal peridd, '
l l'
any person may app'ly for renewal of the certification. An application for renewal must contain all information necessary to bring up to date the information and data contained in the previous application. Notice ,
I and coment procedures shall be used for a rulemaking proceeding on the j application for renewal. The Commission, in its discretion, may require the use of' additional procedures in individual renewal proceedings.
(b) A design certification, either original on renewed, for which i '
a timely application for renewal has been filed remains in effect until I the Commission has determined whether to renew the certification. If the certification is not renewed, it continues to be valid in certain proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of 5 52.55 of this subpart.
(c) The Commission shall refer a copy of the application for renewal to the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The !
l l
- 91. !
, .l ACR'S shall report on those portions of the application which concern l
safety and shall apply the criteria set forth in i 52.59 of this subcart. .
o
- l 52.59 Criteria for renewal. !
.(a) The Comission shall' issue a rule granting the renewal if the design, either as originally certified or as modified during the rulemaking on the renewal, complies with the Atomic Energy Act and the.
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time of the a
renewal, and any other requirements the Commission may wish to impose-after a determination that there is a substantial increase in overall protection.of the public health and safety or the common defense and .
security.to be derived from the new requirements and that the direct and
^
indirect costs of. implementation of those requirements are justified in view of this increased protection.
h (b) Denial of renewal does not bar the applicant, or another applicant, from filing a new application for certification of the j i
design, which proposes design changes which. correct the deficiencies 1 cited in the denial of the renewal. j i
4 i
1 6 5.2.61 Duration of renewal.
Each renewal of certification for a standard design will be for not ,
less than five nor more than ten years.
j l
. . i
~ ' '
4 92 a
i 52.63 Finality of. standard design. certifications. l l
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any provision in 10 CFR 50.109, while a ;
. \
standard design certification is in effect under i 52.55'.or 52.61 of
'~
this 'suboart, the Comission may not impose new requirements on the i certification'n whether on its own motion, or in response to a petition ,
from any person, unless the Commission determines in a notice and-coment rulemaking that a modification is necessary either to bring the certification or the referencing plants into compliance with the ,
Comission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued, or to assure adequate protection of the public health and s.afety or the comon defense and security. ;
(2)'AnymodificationtheNRCimp.osesona.designcerti.fication. ,
- rule (mder paragraph (a)(1) of this section ~wiil be applied to all plants referencing the certified design, except those to which the -l modification has been rendered technically irrelevant by action taken under paragraph (3) or paragraph (4) of this subsection, or subsection (b) of this section.
(3) While a design certification is in effect under 9 52.55 or 5 52.61 of this subpart, unless special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR
' 50.12(a) are present, the Commission will not impose new requirements by '
plant-specific order on any part of the design of a specific plant referencing the design certification if that part was approved in the j design certif'ication.
(4) Except as provided in 10 CFR 2.758, 'n making the findings '
required for issuance of a combined license or operating license, or for any hearing under 9 52.103 of this part, the Commission shall treat as j
,. 93
, 1 resolved those matters resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification. ,
l (b)(1) An applicant for an operating , license, or combined license, j or a licensee whose license references a standard design issued under this.subpart, may request an exemption from one or more elements of the design certification. The Commission may grant such a request only if .
e' -
it determines that the exemption will comply with the require.ments of 10 CFR50.12(a). In addition to the factors listed in i 50.12(a), the Commission shall consider whether the special circumstances which 9 50.12(a)(2) requires to be present outweigh any decrease in safety th*t may result from the reduction in standardization caused by'the exemption. The granting of an exemption on request of an applicant shall be subject to litigition in the same manner as other issues,in the operating license or combined license hearing.
(2) The licensee of a plant built according to a standardized design may make a change to the standardized portion of the plant, without prior Commission approval, only if the change does not inv'olve changes to the design as described in the rule certifying the design.
4 a
e E
6 -
a.- 94 i7 SUBPART C - COMBINED LICENSES l
9 52.71 Scope of subpart.
This subpart sets out the requirements and procedures applicable to Commission issuance of combined licenses for nuclear power facilities. .
5 52.73 Relationship to Subparts-A and B.
l An application for a combined license under this subpart may, but need not, reference a standard design certification issued under
. Subpart 8 of this part or an early site permit issued under Subpart A of this part, or b'oth.
I
~
9 52.75' Filing of applications.
Any person except one excluded by 10 CFR 50.38 may file an application for a combined license for a nuclear power facility with the Director.of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The applicant shall comply with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.4 and 50.30(a) and (b), except for paragraph (b)(6), as they would apply to an application for a nuclear power plant construction permit. The fees associated with the filing and review of the application are set out in 10 CFR Part 170.
- 95. l q
9 52.77: . Contents c,f applications; general information.
7 The application shall contain all of the information required by 10 CFR 50.33, as that'section would apply to an applicant for. a construction permit or an operating license, and 10 CFR 50.33a, as that section would apply to an' applicant for a nuclear power plant ,
construction permit. In particular, the applicant shall comply with-the requirement of 9 50.33a(b)- regarding the submission of antitrust information.
9 52.79 Contents of applications; technical 'information.
'(a)(1) In general, if the application references an early site permit, the application need not ccintain such information or analyses as .
have been submitted to the Commission in connection with the early site permit, but shall contain, in addit!on to the information and analyses otherwise required, information sufficient to' demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within he parameters specified in the early site permit, and to resolve any other significant environmental.
issue not considered in any previous proceed'ing on the site or the ,
design.
(2) If the application does not reference an early site permit, the applicant shall comply with the rec:uirements of 10 CFR 50.30(f) by including with the application an environm, ental report prepared in i l
accordance with the provisions of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
(3) If the application does not reference an early site permit which contains a site redress plan as described in 5 52.17(c) of this ]
i i
I I
_c , ;
,, 96 J i
part, and if the applicant wishes to be able to perform the activities !
i at the site allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), then the application shall j l
contain the information required by.5 52.17(c) of this part. l 1
(b) The application must contain the technically relevant information required of applicants' for an operating license by 10 CFR 50.34. The final safety analysis report and other required information ,
may incorporate by reference the final . safety analysis r'eport for a i certified standard design. In particular, an application referencing a _
certified design must describe those portions of the design which are site-specific, such as the service water intake structure and the ultimate heat sink. An application referencing a certified design must also demonstrate compliance with the interface requirements established
'. for the design under 5 52.47(a)(1) of this .part. If the application
~
does not reference a certified design, the application must , comply with th'e requirements of 5 52.47(a)(2) of this part for level of design q information, and shall contain the technical infomation required by I
$6 52.47(a)(1)(1), (ii), (iv), and (v), and (3), and, if the design is modular, 52.47(b)(3).
(c) The application for a combined license must in,:lude the proposed tests, inspections, and analyses which the licensee shall I
perform and the acceptance criteria therefor which are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that, if the tests, i i
I inspections and analyses are perfomed and the acceptance criteria met, the facility has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the combined license. Where the applica' tion references a certified l standard design, the test, inspections, anglyses and acceptance criteria
97
.g,.
contained in the certified design shall apply to those portions of the
., facility design which are covered by the design certification.
(d) The application must contein emergency plans which provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures'can and will be l l
taken in the event of a radiological emerger.cy at the site. j (1) If the application references an early site permit, the . )
l application may incorporate by reference emergency plans approved in ;
connection with the issuance of the permit.
(2) If the application does not reference an early site permit, or if no emergency plans were approved in connection with the issuance of the permit, the applicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain certifications from the local and State governmental agencies with
!. omergency planning responsibilities (t) that the proposed emergency i
. plans are practicable, (ii) that these agencies are committed to participating in any further development of the plans, including any ;
required field demonstrations, and (iii) that these agencies are committed to executing t' heir responsibilities under the plans in the event of an emergency. The application must contain any certifications I
that have been obtained. If these certifications cannot be obtained, the application must contain information, including a utility plan, sufficient to show that the proposed plans nonetheless provide l reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be j taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the site.
(3) If the appi,ication references an early site permit which contains emergency planning parameters, the parameters shall apply.
f l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ d
98.-
I 52.81 Standards'for review of applications.
Applications filed under this subpart will,be reviewed according .to the standards set out in 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices and Part 100 as thef apply to applications for construction permits and operating licenses for nuclear power plants, and as those standards are .
technically relevant to the design proposed for the facility.
l .
l - .j 6 52.83 Applicability of Part 50 provisions.
Unless otherwise specifically provided'in this subpart, all I
provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices applicable to holders of
- l. , construction, permits for nuclear power reactors, also apply to holders ofl combined licenses. issued under this subpart. Similarly, all provisions I
of 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices applicable to holders of operating .
1 licenses also apply to holders of combined licenses issued under this I subpart, once the Commission has made the findings required under 6 52.103 of this subpart, prtvided that, as applied to a combined license, 10 CFR 50.51 shall require that the initial duration of the license ]
1 shall not exceed 40 years from the date on which the Commission makes )
the findings required under 9 52.103 of this subpart. However, any limitations contained in Part 50 regarding applicability of the provisions to certain classes of facilities continue to apply. .
5
99 5 52.85 Administrative review of applications.
A proceeding on a combined license is subject to all applicable procedural requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 2, in'cluding the i requirements for docketing (i 2.101) and issuance of a notice of hearing
($2.104). All hearings on combined licenses are governed by the ,
procedures contained in Part 2, Subpart G.
5 52.87 Referral to the ACRS.
The Commission shall refer a copy of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACPS shall report on,those portions of the application which. concern safety and shall apply the criteria set forth in 9 52.81 of this subpart,'in accordance with the finality provisions of this part.
6 5s.89 Environmental review.
If the application references an early site permit or a certified st'andard design, the environmental review must focus on whether the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the early site permit and any other significant environmental issue not consideredinanypreviousproceedingon.thesiteorthe[esign. If the
, application does not reference an early site permit or a certified standard design, the environmental review procedures set out in 10 CFR Part 51 shall be followed, including the issuance of a final
i 100L .
t T '
environmental impact statc aent,'but excluding the-issuance of a supplement'underi51.95(a).
l~52.91 Authorization to conduct site activities.
(a)(1) If the application references an-early site: permit which. ,
l contains a site redress plan as described in i 52.17(c) of this part; l i
' the. applicant is authorized by 5 52.25 of this part to perform the site preparationactivitiesdescribedin10CFR50.10(e)(1). j (2) .If the application does not reference an early site permit-which contains such a redress plan, the appitcant may not perform the site preparation activities allowed by 5 50.10(e)(1) without' first j
, submitting a site redress plan in accord with 9 52.79(a)(3),of this ,
subpart and obtain,ing the separate authorization requir<./ by Q - !
50.10(e)(1). Such authorization shall be granted only after.the ;
presiding officer in the proceeding on the application has made the findings and determination required by 6 50.10(e)(2) and has determined that the site redress plan ~ meets the criteria in 1 52.17(c) of this part.
(3) Authorization to conduct the activities described in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(3)(1) may be granted only after the presiding officer in the combined license proceeding makes the additional finding required by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(3)(ii).
(b) If, after an applicant for a combined license has performed the activities permitted by subsection (a) of this section, the application for the license is withdrawn or denied, and the early site ,
i permit referenced by the application expires, then the applicant shall l
l 1
l
101 1 1
t redress the site in accord with the terms of the site redress plan. If,
- b fe ore redress is complete, a use not envisaged in the redress plan is found for the site or parts thereof, the applicant shall carry out the redress plan to the greatest extent possible consistent with the alternate use.
9 52.93 Exemptions and variances.
(a) Applicants for a combined license under this subpart, or any amendment to a combined license, may include in the application a request, under 10 CFR 50.12, for an exemption from one or more of the Commission's regulations, including any part of a design certification rule. The- Commission .shall grant such a request if it determines that the exemption will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a).
(b) An applicant for a combined license, or any amendment to a combined license, who has filed an application referencing an early site permit issued under this subpart may include in the application a request for a variance from one or more elements of the permit. In l determining whether to grant the variance, the Commission shall apply the same technically relevant criteria as were applicable to the '
application for the original or renewed site permit. Issuance of the variance shall be subject to litigation during the combined license J
proceeding in the same manner as other issues material to that proceeding.
e
- u. '
i q
102 . j l
\
l 52.97 Issuance of combined licenses.
i (a) The Commission shall issue a combined license for a nuclear
, power facility upon finding that the applicable requirements of.
Q9 50.40, 50.42, 50.43, 50.47, and 50.50 have been met, and that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and ,
operated in conformity wit'h the license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and the Commission's regulations.
(b) The Comission shall identify in the license the tests, inspections, and analyses that the licensee shall perform and the acceptance criteria therefor which are necessary and sufficient to provide reasorable assurance that, if the tests, inspections, and analyses are performed,and thel acceptance criteria met, the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and the Commission's regulations.
% 52.99 Inspection during construction.
After issuance of a combined license, the NRC staff shall assure that the required inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met. Holders of combined licenses shall comply with the provisions of SQ 50.70 and 50.71. At appropriate intervals during construction, the NRC staff shall publish in the Federal Register notices of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
l
,. 103 )
1
)
-1 52.101 Pre-operational antitrust review.
If, before the Commission makes the findings required under,5 52.103 of this subpart, the Comis'sion, after consultation with the ;
i Attorney General, determines that significant changes in the . licensee's l 1
activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the .
previous' review by the Attorney General and the Commission in connection with the issuance of the combined license, the antitrust review required by Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy.Act must be completed prior to commencement of commercial operation of the facility. Upon completion:
of this review, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may impose any additional license conditions as authorized by Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act.
9 52.103 Operation under a combined license.
(a) Not less than 180 days before loading of fuel into the reactor, the holder of the combined license shall, in writing, notify the Commission of the expected dates of both fuel loading and criticality. The Commission shall publish notice of these dates in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice shall also advise persons whose interests may be affected by facility operation of their rights
.) ;
under subsection (b) of this section.
(b)(1) Not later than 60 days after publication of the notice l required by subsection (a), any person whose interest may be affected by facility operation may file one or both of the following in writing:
l
]
104 l (i) A petition which shows, prima facie, that one or more of the acceptance criteria in the combined license have not been met and, as a result, there is good cause to modify or prohibit operation; or I (ii) A petition to modify the terms and conditions' of the combined license.
(2)(1) A good cause petition filed under paragraph (b)(1)(1) will ,
be granted by the Comission only if it includes, or clearly references, official NRC documents, documents prepared by or for the combined license holder, or evidence admissible in a proceeding under Subpart G of Part 2, which show, prima facie, that the acceptance criteria have not been met. The combined license holder and NRC staff may file
~
answers to the petition within the time specified in 10 CFR 2.730 for
, answers tg motions, by parties and staff. If the Comission in its judgment decides, on the basis of the petitions and any answers thereto, that the petition meets the requirements of this paragraph, that the issues raised by the petition are not exempt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 554(a)(3), that genuine issues of material fact are raised, and that sectiement or other informal resolution of the issues is not possible, then the genuine issues of material fact raised by the petition shall be resolved in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554, 556, and 557. In such cases, the notice of hearing from the Comission shall specify the peccedures to be followed, which may, but need not, include some or all of the procedures in Subpart G of Part 2. Matters exempt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 554(a)(3) may be decided by the Comission solely on the basis of the showing of good'eause and any responsive pleadings.
105 j s l l
(ii) A' petition to modify the terms and conditions of the combined [
license will be processed in accord with 10 CFR 2.206. The Director 8
shall grant or deny the petition before the licensed activity allegedly l
. affected by the petition (fuel loading, low power testing, etc.)
commences. If the petition is granted, then an order to modify the combined license will be issued pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204. Fuel loading ,
and operation under the combined license will not be affected by the granting of the petition unless the order to modify is made immediately i
effective pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204. i (c) Prior to fuel loading, the Commission shall find that the acceptance criteria in the combined license have been met and that, accordingly, the facility has been constructed and will operate in i.
conformity with the Atomfc Energy Act and the Commission's regulations. l
_ . j If the combined license is for a modular design, each reactor module may.
require a separate finding as construction proceeds. If appropriate, j the Commission may also make separate findings 'for purposes of fuel ;
i loading, criticality, icw power testing, or any other discrete phase of l reactor operation, j I
i l
. .)
a
I
- e. .
j l
5 9
4 4
I t
. Attachment 2' 4
4 0
e e
a 4
f i
i l
l l
l l
i l
9
. _ - ._ . - . - _ . . . .--.~.~-- --. . - - - - - . - ~ ~ . - . - - . - - ,
1 1
1 1
~
'PART 52 - EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN. CERTIFICATIONS;- l
.AND COMBINED LICENSES:FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS' ]
General Provisions Sec. )
52.1 Scope.
i 52.3 ' Definitions .
52.5 'Intereretati6ns.
52.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval'.
s Subpart A - Early Site Permits 52.11 Scope of subpart..
52.13 Relationship to Subpart F of 10-CFR Part 2 and Appendix Q-of this part. j i 52.15- Filing'of applications.
52.17 Contents of applications.
52.18 Standards for review of applications, j 52.19 1Pernit and renewal fees. !
52.21 Hearings. !
1 52.23 Referral to the ACRS.
52.24 Issuance of early site oermit.
52.25 Extent of activities permitted.
52.27 Duration of permit. '
52.29 Application for reneual'. .
52.31 Criteria for renewal.
52.33 Duration of renewal. .;
52.35 Use of site for other purposes.. l
< 52.37 Reporting of defects and noncompliance; revocation, l suspension, modification of' permits for cause. .l 52.39 Finality of early site permit determinations.
Subpart B - Standard Design Certifications w !
52.41 Scope of-subpart. ]
52.43 Relationship to Appendices M, N, andh(ofthispart. .!
52.45 Filing of applications. ',
52.47 Contents of applications. l 52.49 Design certification and renewal fees. 1
-52.51- Administrative review of applications. .
, 52.53 Referral to the ACRS. .x
'52.54 Issuance of-standard desian certification. T 52.55 Duration of certification. N 52.57 Application for renewal.
52.59 Criteria for renewal.
52.61 Duration of renewal.
52.63 Finality of standard design certif,1 cations.
D 9
- 2 Subpart C - Combined Licenses j i
52.71 Scope of subpart. .
52.73 Relationship to Subparts A and B. l 52.75 Filing of applications. )
52.77 Contents of applications; general Information. l 52.79 Contents of applications; technical Information.
52.81 Standards for review of applications.
52.83 Applicability of Part 50 provisions.
52.85 Administrative review of. applications.
52.87 Referral to the ACRS.
52.89 Environmental review.
52.91 Authorization to conduct site activities.
52.93 Exemptions and variances.
52.97 Issuance of combined licenses.
52.99 Inspection during construction.
52.101 Pre-operational antitrust review.
52.103 Authorization to operate under a combined license.
Authority: Secs. 103, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936,'948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.
1244, as amended,(42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 20'6; 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as' amended-
,(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). '
]
j l
i'
__.m_.-_. _ _ _ _ ________--_m-____.2 . _ - - - - _ = . . . . M
ec: ,
3-
,3 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 52.1 Scoce.
This part governs the issuance of early site' permits, -
standard design certifications, and combined' construction permits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear powar facilities' i I
-licensed under Section 103 or 104b of under the Atomic Energy Act i of~1954, as amended (68 Stat. 919), and Title'II of the' Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).
i
)'
Sec. 52.3 Definitions.
As used in this part, 1
(a) " Combined license" means a combined construction permit q and conditional. operating license for a nuclear power facility issued pursuant to Subpart-C of this part. ;
j .' l (b) "Early site permit" means a Commission approval, issued pursuant to Subpart A of this part, for a site or sites for one f or more nuclear power facilities.
(c) " Standard design" means a design which is sufficiently
' detailed and complete to support certification in a'ecordance with Subcart B of this eart. Escensing-ef-a-nuetear-pewer-facility-er apprevat-of-a-maier-pertien-of-such-a-faeility-when-referenced-in an-application-fer-a-eenstruehsen-permit--eembined-construction e
s- >
4 1
i permit-and-conditional-operating-ticenser-er-standard-design l 1
eartificatieny-as-approprinter and which is usable for a multiple number of, units or at a multiple number of sites without' )
l reopening or repeating the review. !
)
(d) " Standard design certification,n". "desian certification". - d or " certification" means a Commission approval, issued pursuant ;
to Subpart B of this part, of a standard donign for a nuclear ;
power facilityr-er-a-mafer-portsen-of-such-a-facitity. A design !
so approved may be referred to as a " certified standard design". !
(e) All other terms in this part have the meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2, or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as i
6 applicable. . .
1 Sec. 52.5 Interpretations. {
1 Exceet as specifically authorized by the Commission in l writina, no interpretation of the meanina of the regulations in ;
i this eart by any officer or emolovee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be reccanized to be bindina ucon the Commission.
Sec. 52.8 Information collection requirements: OMB ace'roval. ,
l 1
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the
-__m_._.______________-_______.__.m____.._.____ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
, 5 I
a Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150(b)-- .
(b) The approved information collection requ,irements -
contained in this part appear in _ 52.15, 52.17, 52.29, 52.45, 52.47, 52.57, 52.75, 52.77, and 52.79.
k
+
8 4 ,
6 e
w__-_--._--___ . - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ - . _ . - - ._ _ _ _ _ - - . _ - . . _ . _ - . _ - _ _ - -
- 6 e
SUBPART A S EARLY SITE PERMITS Sec. 52.11 Epoce of subcart.
This subpart sets out the requirements and procedures -
applicable to Commission issuance of early site permits for approval of a site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities separate from and-prier-te the filing of an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility.
Sec. 52.13 Rel$tionship to Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 2 and Accendix 0 of this cart.
The procedures of this Subpart do not replace those set out in Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 2 or Aeoendix 0 of this Part.
Subpart F applies only when early review of site suitability issues is sought in connection with a-fertheeming an application for a permit to construct certain power facilities. Accendix 0 f l
acclies only when NRC staff review of one or more site l l
suitability issues is soucht secaratelv from and orier to the !
submittal of a construction oermit. A Staff Site Report issued under Accendix 0 in no way affects the authority of the ,
l Commission or the cresidina officer in any oroceedina under l l
Subcarts F or G of 10 CFR Part 2. This sEubpart A applies when any person who may apply for a construction permit under 10 CFR
7 Part 50 or for a combined license under 10 CFR Part 52 seeks an i
early site permit from the Commission separately from and-prier .
1 he_an application for a construction permit or a combined license for a facility. This-subpart-may-net-be-used-ence-an-applientien has-been-decketed-pursuant-te-10-eFR-Er6097 -
Sec. 52.15 Filine of acclications.
(a) Any person who may apply for a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50, or for a combined license under 10 CFR Part 52, may file with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an .
I application ~f or an early site permit. An application for an ea,rly site permit may be filed notwithstanding the fact that a application for a construction permit or a combined license has i
not been filed in connection with the site or sites for which a permit is sought.
(b) The application must comply with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.30(a), (b), and (f)r as they would acolv to an aonlication for a construction oermit. The followina cortions of sec. 50.4, which is referenced by 50.30(a)(1), are acclicable: caracraohs (a) (b)(11-(3), (c), (d), and (e).
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ________n
8 ,
Sec. 52.17 Contents of anolications.
(a) (1) The application must contain the information required by 10 CFR 50.33(a)-(d) ,and the first three sentences of 50.34 (a) (1) . and, to the extent aceroval of emeroency olans is -
souaht under caracraoh (b)(2)(ii) below. the information recuired by 50.33(a) and (i) , and 50.34(b)f6)(v). In particular, the application should describe the following:
(i) the number, type, and thermal power level of the .
facilities for which the site may be used; (ii) the boundaries of the site; (iii) the proposed general location of each facility on the , ]
site; ,
(iv) the anticipated maximum levels of radiological and thermal effluents each facility will produce; (v) the type of cooling systems, intakes, and outflows that may be associated with each facility;
)
(vi) the seismic, meteorological, hydrologic, and geologic i
characteristics of the proposed site (see Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100);
(vii) the location and description of any nearby industrial, militarv. or transportation facilities and routes; and fvist (viii)- the existing and projected future population profile of the area surrounding the site.
1
C 9
e (2) A complete environmental report as required by 10 CFR l
51.45 and 51.50 shall be included in the application, orovided, i ,
I however, that such environmental recort shall focus on the l l
environmental effects of construction and oce, ration of a reactor, I t
or reactors, which have characteristics that f311 within the -
costulated site carameters, and orovided further fthat the recort l need not include an assessment of the benefits (for examolg, need I
for oower) of the crocosed action, but shall include an j evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviousiv suoerior alternative to the site crocosed.
(b)111 The application must demens#. rate orovide information sufficient to show that the area surrounding the. site is amenable to emergency planning which would provide reasonable assurance l l
that adequate protecti've measures could be taken in the event of l a radiological emergency at the siter, civen the characteristics of the site and the erobable emeraency clannina zones surrounding the site; such characteristics include, but in earticular cases ;
l would not necessarily be limited to, the toccarachv and I l
l meteoroloav of the olannina zones; the croiected future Doculation orofile of the olannina zones; land use inside the ;
clannina zones; the shelterina caeacity and shelterina effectiveness of buildinas'in the clume emercency olannina zone; and cotential routes for evacuation out of the clume emeraency j l
clannina zone.
(2) The acolication may also either 1
1
l 10 l l
I l
(i) Procose emercency olannina carameters for review and l
approval by the NRC and the Federal Emercency Manacement Acency; the carameters may include such matters as the exact size and shace of the emercency olannina zongs, or the resources reauired for shelterina or evacuation; conformance with these carameters -
by the emercency elans submitted by an anolicant for a combined license or an coeratina license will be sufficient to show the aggeotability of the olans with resoect to the emercency olannina requirements reflected in the carameters; or (ii) Procose comolete emercency olans for review and accroval by the NRC and the Federal Emercency Manacement Acencv.
, in accord with the acclic'able crovisions of 10 CFR 50.47. I I
Under caracraohs (1) and (2)(i) of this subsection. Tthe )
1 application must include a description of any contacts and arrangements made with local, state, and federal governmental agencies with emeroency olannina responsibilityles, fer-eeping with-emergencies Under the cotion set forth in caraaraoh (2 ) (11) of this subsection, the acclicant shall make cood faith efforts to obtain from the same governmental acencies, certifications (i) that the crocesed emeraency elans are practicable. (ii) that these acencies are committyd to carticipatina in any further development of the olans, includina env recuired field demonstrations, and (iii) that these aaencies are committed to executina their responsibilities under the clans in the event of an emeraency. The acclimation must contain any
11 certifications that have been obtained. If these certifications cannot be obtained, the acclimation must contain information, includina a utility elan, sufficient to show that the crocosed clans nonetheless orovide reasonable assurance that adeauate b
orotective measures can and will be taken in the event of a -
radiological emercency at the site.
(c) If the acclicant wishes to be able to cerform, after crant of the early site oermit, the activities at the site allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first obtainina the secarate authorization recuired by that section, Tthe application must propose, for inclusion in the early site oermit, a plan for redress of the site in the event that.the such activities permitted-by-seer-5BvB5far are performed and the site permit expires before it is referenced in an application for a ,
construction permit or a combined license issued under subpart C of this part. The application must demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that redress carried out under the plan will achieve an eetf-maintaining environmentally stabler and aesthetically acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use may conform with local zoning laws in effect at oermit' exoiration.
1 P e
. 12 Sec. 52.18 Standards for review of acclications. .
Applications filed under this subpart will be reviewed according to the applicable standards set out in 10 CFR Part 50
\ and its appendices and Part_2qq as they apply to applications for -
construction permits for nuclear power plants. In particular, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact statement during review of the application, in accordance with the acclicable erovisions of 10 CFR Part 51, orovided, however, that the draft and final environmental imoact statements erecared by the Commission shall focus on the environmental effects of construction and oeeration.of a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that fall within the'costul'ated site carameters, and erovidgd further that the statements need not includq_an assessment of the benefits (for examele, need for oower) of the crocosed action, but shall include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously sueerior alternative to the site crocosed t and-tIhe Commission shall determine, after consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in-seeerd-with-the-apptseabte-pertsens-ef-te EFR-50,49ferf9tr whether the information required of the applicant by sec. 52.17(b)111 demonstrates shows that the area surrounding the site is amenable to emergency planning which would provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a radiological emergency
13 l l l l
> - l at the site. whether any emercency elannina carameters submitted by the acclicant under sec. 52.17 (b) (2 ) (i) are sufficient to determine the adecuacy of any cortion of an emercency olan which ;
conforms to th'e carameter, and whether any emercency olans I
submitted by the acclicant under sec. 52.17 (b) (2 ) (ii) crovide -
reasonable assurance that adecuate erotective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emercency.
Sec. 52.19 Permit and renewal fees.
The fees charged for the review of an application for the initial issuance ~or renewal' of an early site permit are these-fer special-preieets7-as-defined-in-te-eFR-19ers-and set forth in 10 CFR 170.21. tocether with a schedule for their deferred recoverv. There is no application fee. Ati-fees-fer-the-review ef-an-application-are-deferred-as-fellowst fat--Ef-an-applicatsen-is-filed-fer-6-eenstructien-permit-er eembined-ticense-fer-a-facitity-te-be-teented-at-a-site-fer-which
,an-earty-site-permit-has-been-issued 7 -the-permit-header-shatt-pay the-applicabte-fees-fer-the-permit-at-the-time-the-facitity apptientien-referencing-the-earty-site-permit-is-filedr--Ef7-at the-end-ef-the-initiat-peried-ef-the'-permit7 -ne-facility a ppi s c a t i e n- r e f e r e nc ing- th e-e a rly- s i t e-p e rmi t-h a s -b e e n-d e c k e t e d7
. the-permit-header-shall-pay-any-outstanding-fees-fer-the-permier
. 14 (by--Ef-the-permit-is-renewedy-the-permit-header-shalt-pay any-outstanding-fees-fer-the-renewah-at-the-time-a-fasility application-referencing-the-early-site-permit-is-fitedr--Efr-at the-end-ef-the-renewat-persedr-ne-facility-appti'entien referencing-the-permit-has-been-fitedy-the-permit-header-shath -
pay-any-outstanding-fees-fer-the-renewake fet--Ef-an-application-fer-the-issuance-or-renewal-ef-an early-site-permit-is-denied-er-withdrawny-any-outstanding-fees asseeisted-with-the-review-ef-the-appi.ientien-are-due-immediately and-payable-by-the-appliennt-fer-the-permit-er-renewat-Sec. 52.21 Hearinas.
- l An'early site permit is a partial construction permit and is j therefore subject to all procedural requirements in 10 CFR part 2" l l
i which are applicable to construction permits, including the l requirements for docketing in secs. 2.101(a) (1) -(4 ) , and the requirements for issuance of a notice of hearing in secs. 2.104(a), (b) (1) (iv) and (v), (b) (2) to the extent it runs parallel to (b) (1) (iv) and (v), and (b) (3) , orovided that the desianated sections shall not be construed to recuire that the environmental report or draft or final environmental imoact ,
statement include an assessment of the benefits of the crocosed 1
action. In the hearina, the cresidina officer shall also determine whether, takina into consideration the site criteria
l .
15 i
1 1
contained in 10 CFR Part 100, a reactor. or reactors, havina characteristics that fall within the carameters for the site can
)
be constructed and coerated without undue risk to t'he health and i l
safety of the oublic. All hearings conducted on applications for 1 early site permits filed under this part are governed by the -
procedures contained in Suboart G of Part 2.
~
Sec. 52.23 Referral to the ACRS.
The Commission shall refer a copy of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS shall report 6n those p~ortions of the application which concern safety.
Sec. 52.24 Issuance of early site permit.
After conductina a hearina under sec. 52.21 of this subcart l
h.nd receivina the recort to be submitted by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeauards under sec. 52.23 of this subeart, and upon determining that an_ aeolication for an early site oermit meets the acclicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Enerav Act and the Commission's regulations, and that notifications, if any, to other acencies or bodies have been dulv made, the Commission shall issue an early site oermit, in such form and containina such conditions and limitations. as the Commission deems accrocriate and necessarv. -
i
, 16 l Sec. 52.25 Extent of activities earmitted. 2 (a) If an early site earnit contains a site redress clan,
.Tthe holder of an-early-site the permit, or the amelicant for a 1
construction earmit or combined license who references the --
normit. may perform the. activities at the site allowed by 10 CFR- 1 50.10(e) (1) without first obtaining the separate authorization required by that section, erovided that the final environmental
_imuact statement erecared for the eermit has concluded that such activities will not result in any significant adverse environmental imeact which cannot be redressed.
. (b) If.:the activities permitted by paragraph.(a) of this -
section are performed at a-given ADE site for which an early site' i I
^
cermit has been oranted, and the permit-is-net-renewed-for-that site-and-net site is not referenced in an application for a construction permit or a combined license issued under subpart c of this Part while the eermit remains valid, then the early site permit shall remains in effect solely for the purpose of site redress, and the holder of the permit must redress the site in accordance with the terms of the site redress plan required by sec. 52.17(c). If, before redress is complete, a use not envisaged in the redress plan is found for the site or parts q thereof, the holder of the permit'shall carry out the redress plan to the greatest extent possible consistent with the l I '
alternate use.
17
{
1 1
.l
)
Sec. 52.27 Duration'of eermit. <
(a) Excent as erovided in subsection (b) of this section.
Aan early site permit issued under this subpart is shall be valid for no't less than ten nor more than twenty years from the date of -
issuance.
(from 52.29 in the proposed rule (PR):]
(b) (1) An early site permit continues to be valid beyond -
the date of expiration in any proceeding.on a construction permit application or a combined license application which references
-the early site permit and is docketed either before the date of
. expira't' ion of the early site' permit', or, if a timely ~ application for renewal of the permit has been filed, before the Commission has determined whether to renew the permit.
(also from 52.29, with part removed:]
(2) An early site permit also continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any proceeding on an. operating license application which is based on a construction permit which references the early site permit, and in any hearina held under sec. 52.103 of this cart before coeration-becins under a combined license which references the early site eermit. and-was-decketed either-before-the ,date-ef-expiratien-ef-the-early-site-permity l ery-if-a-timety-application-fer-renewal-ef-the-permit-was-fitedy before-the-eemmissien-determined-whether-te-renew-the-permity
- l. s.- 18- -
.1 J I Isl An applicant for a construction permit or combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a site for which an early site permit application has been docketed but not granted.
Sec. 52.29 Anolication for renewal.
1 (a) Not less than twelve nor more than thirty-six months prior'to the end of the initial twenty-year period, or any later renewal. period, the permit holder may apply for a renewal of the permit. An. application for renewal must contain all information necessary to bring up to date the information'and data contained 1
in'the' previous application.
(b) Any person whose interests may be affected by renewal of the permit may request a hearing:on the application for.
renewal. The request for a hearing must comply with 10 CFR 2;714. If a hearing is granted, notice of the hearing will be published in accordance with 10 CFR 2.703.
(c) ,
An early site permit, either criginal or renewed, for
- which a timely application for renewal has been filed, remains in effect until the Commission has determined whether to renew the permit. If the permit is not renewed, it continues to be valid in certain proceedings in accordance with the crevisions of sec.
52.27(b) of this sibnart. en-en-application-fer-a-eenstruction
. permit-er-eembined-iseense-referencing-the-permit-and-decketed
. l 19 before-the-end-ef-the-initial-persed-ef-the-permit7 -er-a-tater renewat-persedr--An-unrenewed-permit-akse-eentinues-to-be-valid I in-proceedings-en-an-application-fer-an-eperating-ticense-which is-based-en-a-eenstruction-permit-referencing-the-permit-and decksted-prier-te'-expiratien-ef-the-permit-er-renewate (d) The Commission shall refer a conv of Tthe application for renewal must-be-ferwarded to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)y2 whieh-shath-review-the-application and-repert-sts-findings-and-recommendations-te-the-eemmissient The-AeRS-need-net-recensider-issues-en-whieh-it-has-made findings and-recommendations-in-any-earlier-review-ef-the-site-whieh-is the-subject-ef-the-applicatient The ACRS shall report on those cortions of the acclimation which concern safety end shall aobly the criteria set forth in sec. 52.31 of this subcart.
Sec. 52.31 Criteria for renewal.
(a) The Commission shall grant the renewal if the Commission determines that the site complies with the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations and orders acclicablg add in effect at the time of the renewal, and any mere-stringent new requirements the Commission may wish to impose after a determination that there is a. substantial increase in overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the mere-stringent ngw
i 20 ,
requirements and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation of those requirements are justified in view of this increased protection. l (b) A denial of renewal on this basis does not bar the permit holder or another applicant from filing a new application -
for the site which proposes changes to the site or the way in which it is used which correct the deficiencies cited in the deniai of the renewal.
Sec. 52.33 Duration of renewal.
Each renewal of an early site permit shall be for not'less
~
than ten nor more than twenty years.
- Sec. 52.35 Use of site for other ournoses.
A site for which an early site permit has been issued under this subpart may be used for purposes other than those described in the permit, including the location of other types of energy facilities. The permit' holder shall inform the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of any significant uses for the site which have not been accroved in the tely site oermit.
non-nuetear-activities-fer-whieh-the-site-is-te-be usedy The information about the activities must be given to the Director in advance of any actual construction or site modification for the
m_ _
21 l
\
i' activities. The information Drovided could be the basis for I
imoosina new requirements on the oermit, in accordance with the crovisions of sec. 52.39 of this cart. If the nermit holder 1
informs the Director that the holder no lonaer intends to use the site for a quclear cower olant, the Director shall terminate the -
cermit. Ef-the-Bireeter-finds-that-a-particular-nen-nuetear-use may-have-a-significant-adverse-effeet-en-the-suitabsiity-ef-the site-for-the-puryeses-described-in-the-early-site-permstr-the Bireeter-may-issue-an-erder-te-shew-eause-why-the-permst-sheutd net-be-revoked-er-medified-
. Sec. 52.37 Reporting of de*ects and noncompliance; revocation,'
suscension, modification of cermits for cause; For purposes of Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.100, an early site f permit is a construction permit.
Sec. 52.39 Finality of early site oermit determinations..
l (a) (1) Notwithstanding any provision in 10 CFR 50.109, during-the-initial-peried-in-whieh-a-permit-issued-under-this subpart while an early site nermit is in effect under sec. 52.27 or 52.33 of this subcart, the Commission may Lot impose mere stringent new requirements, including mere-stringent new emergency planning requirements, on the early site permit or the
\
22 e
I site for which it was issued, unless the Commission determines either that fit-Significant-new-information-shews-that a modification is necessary either to bring the permit or the site into compliance with the Commission's regulations and orders acclicable and in -
)
effect at the time the permit was issuedt or fist--A-medificatien-is-necessary to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
fEF--Similartyr-notwithstanding-any-previssens-in-te-GFR 50rt097 -during-any-renewal-persed-in-whieh-an-early-site-permit issued-under-this-subpart-is-in-effeety-the-eemmissien-may-net impose-mere-stringent-requirements-inetuding-mere-stringent emergency-planning-requirements 7-en-the-permit-er-the-site-fer whieh-st-wes-issuedy-unless-the-eemmissien-determines-esther-that fit-Significant-new-information-shows-that-a-medificatien-is necessary-te-bring-the-permit-er-the-site-inte-eemptience-with the-eemmissien's-regulatsens-and-erders-in-effeet-at-the-time-the permit-was-renewedt-er fist-A-medificatien-is-necessary-te-assure-adequate preteetien-ef-the-pubtie-health-and-safety-er-the-eemmen-defense and-securityr (2) In makina the findines recuired for issuance of a v
construction oermit, operatina license, or combined license, or the findines recuired by sec. 52.103 of this cart. if the l
l
23 acclimation for the construction earmit. oeeratina license, or combined license references an early site eermit, the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved in the croceedina on the amelication for issuance or renewal of the e'ariv' site carmit, unless a contention is admitted that a reactor does not -
fit within one or more of the site carameters included in the site carmit. or a eetition is filed which alleces_gither that the site is not in comeliance with the terms of the early 1113 eermit. or that the terms and conditions of the early site cermit should be modified.
(i) A contention that a reactor does not fit within one or more'of'the site'earameters included in the site eermit may be n
liticated in the same manner as other issues material to the i croceedina.
(ii) A cetition which alleces that the site is not in comeliance with the terms of the early site eermit must include, or c1'arly e reference, official RRC documents, documents erecared by or for the eermit holder, or evidence admissible in a croceedina under Subeart G of Part 2, which show, crima facie, that the acceetance criteria have not been met. The eermit holder and NRC staff may file answers to the cetition within the time seecified in 10 CFR 2.730 for answers to motions by earties and staff. If the Commission in its iudament decides. on the basis of the cetitions and any answers thereto, that the cetition meets the requirements of this caracraoh, that the issues are not
]
24 )
e examet from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 554 (a) (3) . that cenuine issues of material fact are raised. and that settlement or other informal resolution of the issues is not nossible. then the canuine issues of material fact raised by the natition shall be i
referred to an Atomic Safety and Licensina Board for further .
eroceedines in accord with Subeart G of Part 2.
(iii) A natition which alleces that the terms and conditions of the early site termit should be modified will be crocessed in accord with 10 CFR 2.206. The Director shall crant or deny the cetition before construction commences. If the cetition is cranted. then an order to modify the early site oermit will be issued oursuant to 10 CFR 2.204. Construction under the construction eermit or combined license will not be -
affected by the crantina of the cetition unles,s the order to modify is made immediately effective cursuant to 10 CFR 2.204.
(iv) Prior to construction. the Commission shall find that the terms of the early site cermit have been met.
(b) An applicant for a construction permit, operating license, or combined licenser-er-any-amendment-to-this-type-ef
, tscenser who has filed an application referencing an early site permit issued under this subpart may include in the application a request for a variance from one or more elements of the permit.
In determining whether to grant the variance, the Commission -
shall aceiv the same technically relevant criteria as were 3 acclicable to the acclimation for the oricinal or renewed site
~
9
_..__________._m _____.______m__..______.______m
25 mit. Issuance of the variance shall bemp d ect to litiaation durina the construction eermit. ooeratina license. or combined license oroceedino in the same manner as other issues material to those oroceedines. b e -epti d e d-by- th e - e e n s id e r a t i e n s - s e t- f e rth-i n
&O-6FR-50r9By-which-tetide-the-eemmissien's-determinations-en -
applientiens-fer-amendments-te-eenstructien-permitsr 9
e l
l
26 ,
l 1
SUBPART B - STANDARD' DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS' i
Sec. 52.41 Scone of suboart.
- 1 1
This subpart sets out the requirements and procedures .
I applicable to commission issuance of rules granting standard design certifications'for nuclear power facilitiesr-er-mafer pertiens-thereefy separate from the filing of an application.for ,
1 a construction permit or combined license for such a facility.
~
Sec. 52.43 Relationship to Accendices M. N and O of this eart, l j
(a) Appendix M to this cart te-eFR-Part-50 governs the issuance'of licenses to manufacture nuclear power reactors to be installed and operated at sites not identified in the manufacturing license application. Appendix N governs licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of duplicate
'l l
I design at multiple sites. These appendices may be used j
)
independently of the provisions in this subpart unless the 1
applicant also wishes to use a certified standard design approved under this subpart.
(b) AppendixLO governs the staff review and approval of J preliminary and final standard designs. These-designs-may-be 2 chattenged-in-individuat-ticensing-preceedingsr A staff aceroval under Accendix 0 in no way affects the authorie.v of the 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________.__-___.m- _ _ _ _
27 j Commission or the cresidina officer in any oroceedina under 1 Subcart G of 10 CFR Part 2. This-subpart Enkoart B of Part 52 governs commission approval, or certification, of standard designs by rulemakingy-as-set-ferth-in-paragraph-9-ef-Appendix-0.
Ig1 A final design approval under Appendix 0 is a ,
prerequisite for certification of a standard design under this 1
subpart. An application for a final design approval must state i whether the applicant intends to seek certification of the design. If the applicant does so intend, the application for the final design approval must, in addition to containing the information required by Appendix 0, comply with the applicable requirements of 10-GFR-ehapter-Er Part 52, Subcart B, particularly secs. 52.45 and 52.47.
Sec. 52.45 Filina of aoolications.
(a) (1) Any person may seek a standard design certification for an essentially complete nuclear power feesistyr-er-a-maser pertsen-of-such-e-facilihyv olant desian which is an evolutionary chance from licht water reactor desians of clants which have been licensed and in commercial operation before the effective date of this rule. ,
12 L Any cerson may also seek a standard desian certification for a nuclear cower clant desian which differs significantly from the licht water reactor desians described in
28 paragraph (a) (1) of this section or utilizes simolified.
inherent, cassive, or other innovative means to accomolish its safety functions. .
3 Ihl An application for certification may be filed j i
notwithstanding the fact that an application for a construction . 1 permit or combined license for such a facility has not been filed Applientiens-fer-certification-of-tess-than-a-complete i
facility-must-meet-the-eriteria-set-ferth-in-paragraph-fdy-ef j this-sectione 1 f Et (c) (1) Because a final design approval under Appendix 0 of 10-eFR-Part-50 this cart is a prerequisite for certification of a standard design, a person.which Eh2 seeks such.a certification'and does not hold, or has not* applied for, a final design approval, shall file with the Director of Nuclear Reactor I
Regulation an application for certificatsen a final desian accroval and certification.
121 Any person who seeks certification but already holds, or has applied for, a final design approval, also shall file with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an application for ,
certification, because the NRC staff may require that the l information before the staff in connection with the review for the final design approval be supplemented for the review for certification.
fbrIdl The applicant shalt must comply with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.30(a)(1)-(4), and (6) and 50.30(b) as
l , .
,. 29 they would apply to an application for a nuclear power plant construction permit. The followina mortions of sec. 50.4. which is referenced by sec. 50.30(a)(1), are anelicable to the extent technically relevant: earacraohs (air'(b). excent for earmarach (6); (c); and (e). .
)
(52.47 has undergone considerable redrafting. It j l incorporates much that was in 52.45 in the PR, and material that i
was in 52.47 in the PR appears below in a different order. The !
l section as a whole now proceeds from requirements all applications must meet to requirements only certain applications must meet. In the text below, we try to indicate where material appeared in the PR.] -
i Sec. 52.47 Contents of aeolications.
(a) The requirements of this subsection aceiv to all acclications for desian certification. The >
l (1) An application for desian certification must containi j
)
111 tThe technical information which is required of applicants for construction permits or operating licenses by 10 CFR Part 20, Part 50 and its appendices, and Parts 73 and 100, and which is technically relevant to the desian and not ,
site-specifici er-irrelevant-te-the-design-fer-whieh-the apptseant-is-seeking-eertificatient--En particular--the 4
l
30 l
l l
apptientien-must-demonstrate-eemptience-with-any-appticable l l
pertiens-ef-the-Three-Mike-Estend-requirements-set-ferth-in-te-eFR 50rseffyv--The-staff-shata-au,-*se-the-prospective-applicant-fer certification-en-whether-the-information-required-by-the-histed pertions-of-te-eFR-ehapter-E-is-appropriate-te-the-staff's -
eensideratien-ef-the-appa catieny-and-en-whether-any-additionat technicat-information-en-the-design-is-requirede (A truncated version of this last sentence appears as t'ehlast paragraph of this subsection. The reference to 50.34 (f) reappears as the next item on the list.)
(by--The-applientien-must-alse-inetude (ii) Demonstration of compliance with any technically ,
relevant portions of the Three Mile Island requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(f);
(1111) The site parameters postulated for the design, and an analysis and evaluation of the design in terms of such parameters; (Biv) Proposed technical resolutions of the those Unresolved Safety Issues and medium- and high-priority Generic Safety Issues appateable which are identified in the version of NUREG-0933 current on the date the desion receives a final desian aceroval and which are technically relevant to the design; (9v) A design-specific probabilistic risk assessment and-a reattstie-assessment-ef-the-degree-te-whieh-the-design-cenferms te-the-eemmiss en's-Safety-Geals-for plant-operatiens; and
31 -
i l
I (421) Proposed tests, analysesy inspections, analyses and acceptance criteria which are necessary and sufficient to provide
. reasonable assurance that, if the tests, inspections and analyses 1
are cerformed and the acceotance criteria met, a plant which references the-design is built and E111 operated within-the .
l specificatsens-ef in accordance with the design certification.
fdt--An-applicatten-for-a-design-eertifientien-must-meet-the fettewing-eriteriat !
(tvli) The application-must-centain interface requirements to be met by those portions of the plant for which the I application does not seek certification. These requirements must
. be sufficiently de' tailed.to allow completion of.the final safety
. analysis and design-specific probabilistic risk assessment required by paragraph 111(bv) of this ggksectionri (Eviii) The-application-must-demonstrate Justification that compliance with these interface requirements of caracraoh vii is verifiable through inspection, testing (either in the plant or elsewhere), previeus-experience- or analysis. The method to be used for verification of interface requirements must be included as cart of the crocosed tests, inspections, analyses, and [
1 acceotance criteria recuired by caracraoh (1)(vi) of this subsection; and eemptience-with-interface-requirements-deating with-reliability-ef-eempenents-must-be-verifiable-threugh l previeus-experience-er-testing 1
i
e 32 7 (913) The-application-must-atse-eentain-a A representative 1
. conceotual design for those portions of the plant'for which the l application does not seek certification 2r--The-representa'tive design-must-illustrate-hew-the-interface-requirements-ean-be-mety se-as to aid the staff in its review of the final safety analysis ,
and probabilistic risk assessment required by paragraph 111(bv) of this gghsection, and to cermit assessment of the adecuacy of l
the interface requirements called for by caracraoh (1) (vii) of this subsection.
111 (This was the 1st parag. of 52.47 in the PR.) The application must contain a level of design information equivalent to that required for a final design approval under Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50. The information submitted for a design certification must include performance requirements and design
~
specifications information sufficiently detailed to permit the preparation of procurement-specifications-and acceptance and inspection requirements by the NRC, and procurement and construction specifications by an acclicant for a construction oermit or a combined license. The information must aise be sufficient to enable the staff Commission ultimatelv to judge the applicant's proposed means of assuring that construction conforms to the design and to reach an final conclusion on the results of all research and development and all matters safety cuestions associated with the desian whieh-must-be-decided before the certification een-be is granted. En-particularly I
l
3 l
33 l
111 (This was part of the first paragraph of 52.47(a) in the PR.] The staff'shall advise the applicant on whether any
'l additkenet technical information en-the-design bevond that recuired by this section must be submitted is-requfred.
(b) The caracrachs of this subsection anelv, accordine to ;.
their erovisions, to earticular acclications (1) The acelication for certification of a nuclear cower
]
- elant desian which is an evolutionary chance from licht water reactor desians of elants which have been licensed and in commercial oeeration before the effective date of this rule must provide the comolete scoca of the desian exceot for site-scecific :
~I elements such,as the service water intake structure and the
~
i (Much of paragraph (2) and its subparagraphs comes from 52.45(c) in the PR.]
1 (2)(i) Certification of a standard desian which differs ;
i sianificantiv from the licht water reactor desians described in caracraoh (b) (1) of this section or utilizes simelified, inherent, cassive, or other innovative means to accomelish its safety functions will be aranted only if (s&)11*1 The performance of each safety feature of the design has been demonstrated through either analysis, aceroeriate test erocrams, prev eus experience, or a combination thereof; er l l
futt-seale-testingt ,
i l
34 (642*)- Interdependent effects among the safety features of.
the' plant desian have been found acceptable by analysis, I I
appropriate testing crograms, or prev &eus experience, or a .
. 1 combination'thereof; and
(&&&2*) sufficient data exist on the-performenee-ef the- .
safety features of the desien piant to assess tha analytical !
I tools used-for safety analyses over a fait sufficient range of normal operating conditions, transient conditions. .and soecified accident eenditions sequences, including equilibrium core. 3 conditionsi and and-the-respense-ef-the-safety-features-ever-the 16fetime-of-the-plante fiv4*) The scoce of the desian is comolete exceet for j site-soecific elements such as the service water intake structure and the ultimate heat sink; or (B) There has been acceetable testina of an aceroeriately sited.-full-size. crototvee of the desian over a sufficient rance ,
of normal oeeratina conditions. transient conditions. and t
seecified accident secuences, includina equilibrium core '
conditions. If the criterion in caracrach (i)(A)(4*) of this subsection is not met, the testina of the erototvee must 4
demonstrate that the non-certified nortion of the clant cannot significantly affect the safe oceration of the olant.
(ii) The acclimation for final desian aceroval of a standard desian of the tvee described in this subsection must crocese the soecific testina necessary to suceort certification
- 35 of the desian, whether the testina be erototyne testina or the .
I testina recuired in the alternative by caracraohs (i)(A)(1*) !
throuch P (i)(A)(4*) of this subsection. (The next sentence was
- 52. 45 (c) (2) in the PR.) The Appendix 0 final design approval of such a design must identify the specific testing required for ,
certification of the design.
(el) An application seeking certification of a modular design must describe the various options for the configuration of the plant and site, including variations in, or sharina of, common systems, interface requirements, and system interactions.
The final safety analysis and the probabilistic risk assessment shouldy-when-neeessaryr also take-inte, account 12r differences among the various options., and-the-analysis-shoutd-set-ferth includina any restrictions which will be necessary during the construction and startup of a given module to ensure the safe operation of any module already en-tine coeratina, ,
Sec. 52.49 Fees for design-eertificatien-and-eertificatien renewal reviews of aeolications.
The fees charged for the review of an application for the initia2 issuance or renewal of a standard design certification are set out in 10 CFR Part 170 2 11, together with a schedule for their phased deferred recovery 2 as-the-eertified-standard-design 1
__j
36 i is-referencede There is no application fee. All-fees-for-review ef-an-application-shatt-be-deferred-as-fettewst fat--Each-time-en-applientsen-is-fited-for-a-eenstruction i
permit-er-eembsned-ticense-fer-a-feeststy-referencing-the-design fer-whieh-a-standard-design-eertificatien-has-been-issuedy-the -
header-ef-the-design-eartificatien-shalt-pay-the-specified pertien-of-the-applicable-fees-fer-the-approvat-et-the-time-the facility-applientien-referencing-the-eertified-standard-design-is filede--Efr-at-the-end-ef-the-initial-persed-ef-the certificatieny-ne-facility-application-referencing-the-eertified j standard-design-has-been-fitedy-the-header-ef-the-design certification-shalt-pay-any-outstanding-fees-fer-the certificatient fby--Ef-the-standard-design-eertificatsen-is-renewedy-the helder-ef-the-design-eertificatien-shatt-pay-the-specified ;
pertien-ef-any-outstanding-fees-fer-the-renewat-each-time-a facility-appticatien-referencing-the-eertified-standard-design-is !
filedr--Efr-at-the-end-ef-the-renewat-persedy-ne-facility application-referencing-the-eertified-standard-design-has-been filedy-the-header-ef-the-design-eertificatien-shalt-pay-any entstanding-fees-fer-the-renewaar ,
fet--Ef-an-applientien-fer-the-issuanee-er-renewaE-ef-a certified-standard-design-is-denied-er-withdrawny-any-fees asseeisted-with-the-review-ef-the-application-shalt-be a
J l
s
37 l
immediately-due-and-payable-by-the-applicant-fer-the-design l l
l eartificatsen-er-renewate l
Sec. 52.51 Administrative review of acolications.2 A standard design certification is a rule that will be issued in accordance with the provisions of Subpart H of 10 CFR 1
Part 2. as sucolemented bv the orovisions of this section. The !
Commission shall initiate the rulemaking after an application has been filed under sec. 52.45fa) and shall specify in-detait the i
procedures to be used for the rulemaking. The rulemaking procedures must provide for notice.and comment and an anpqrtunity for an informal hearing be' fore an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The procedures for the informal hearing must include the i
opportunity for. written presentations made under oath or affirmation and for oral presentations and questioning if the Board finds them either necessary for the creation of an adequate )
record or the most expeditious way to resolve controversies.
Ordinarily, the questioning in the informal hearina will be done by members of the Board, using either the Board's questions or .
1 questions submitted to the Board by the parties. The Board may also request authority from the commission to use additional procedures, such as diseevery direct and cross examination by the carties, or may request that the pommission convene a formal I
adjudication hearina under Subpart G of 10 CFR Part 2 on discrete l
l
f . #
38 '
issues-invetving,seecific and substantial disputes of fact, necessary for the Commission's decision, that cannot be resolved I with sufficient accuracy except in a formal adfudicatsen hearina.
The staff will be a party in the hearing. Notwithstanding
)
anythina in 10 CFR 2.790 to the contrarv.'Bduring the rulemaking, ,
the treatment of proprietary information will be governed by tha same criteria which covern the treatment of ereerietarv information submitted in connection with anelications for construction eermits and oeeratina licenses under 10 CFR Part 50, orovided that the desian certification shall be eublished in Chanter I of this Title. 10-eFR-97990-and-applicable-eemmission ease-law. The decision in~such a hearing will.be based only on -
information.on which all parties have had an opportunity to comment either in resconse to the notice of crocesed rulemakina 2r in the informal hearina.
Sec. 52.53 Referral to the ACRS.
n The Commission shall forward refer a coev of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS shall review recort on those cortions of the application which concern safety. and-repert-its-findings-and-recommendations-te the-eemmissient--The-A6RS-need-net-recensider-issues-en-whieh-it has-made-findings-and-recemmendatiens-in-any-earlier-review-ef the-design-whieh-is-the-subject-ef-the-applicatient l
p r .
, 39
+ .,
Sec. 52.54 Issuance of standard desian certification.
After conductina s rulemakina croceedina under sec. 52.51 of tEin eart on an amelication for a standard desian certification ,
and receivina the recort to be submitted by the Adviserv
~
Committee on Reactor Safeauards under sec. 52.53 of this eart, and unon determining that the aeolication meets the acclicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Enerav Act and the Commission's regulations, the Commission shall issue a standard t
desian certification in the form of a rule for the desian which is the subiect-of the acclimation.
I Sec. 52.55 Duration of certification.
(a) Exceet as erovided in caracrach (b) of this section. A A standard design certification issued pursuant to this subpart is valid for ten years from the date of issuance.
(b) A standard desian certification continues to be vglig bevond the date of exeiration in any eroceedina on an acclimation for a combined license or oeeratina license which references the standard desian certification and is docketed either before the date of exeiration of the certification, or, if a timelv i acclimation for renewal of the certification has been filed, I before the Commission has determined whether to renew the 4
_________._._.m_ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
- , 40 l
certification. A desian certification also continues to be valid bevond the date of erniration in any hearina held under sec.
52.103 of this cart before coeration becins under a combined license which references the desian certification.
121 An applicant for a construction permit or combined .
license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a design certification application has been docketed but not granted.
Sec. 52.57 Aeolication for renewal.
. (a) ',Not less,than twelve nor more than thirty-six men'ths prior to expiration of the initial ten-year period, or any late'r renewal period, the-header-ef-the-design-certification any cerson may apply for renewal of the certification. An application for renewal must contain all information necessary to bring up to date the information and data contained in the previous applica-tion. The Notice and comment procedures te shall be used for a rulemaking proceeding on the application for renewal-must-be these-required-by-seer-5 Erst-fer-rutemakings-en-apptientiens-for initiat-eertificatien-of-a-design. The Commission, in its discretion, may recuire the use of additional orocedures in individual renewal oroceedinagt (b) A design certification, either original or renewed, for which an timely application for renewal has been timety filed l
41 remains In effect until the Commission has determined whether to renew the certification. If the certification is not renewed, it continues to be valid in certain proceedings 2 in accordance with the orovisions of sec. 52.55 of this subcart. en-en-applientien fer-a-construction-permity-eembined-ticenser-er-operating-ticense .
referencing-the-eertified-design-and-decketed-prier-te-erpiration ef-the-eertificatien-er-renewatt (c) The Commission shall forward refer a cooy,of the application for renewal to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The-AERS-shatt-review-the-application-and repert-its-findings-and-recommendations-te-the-eemmissienr--The l
, .AeRS-peed-net-recensider-issues-en-which-st-has-made-f$ndings-and reeemmendatsens-in-any-eartjer-review-ef-the-design-whieh-is-the subject-of-the-appisestient The ACRS shall recort cn1 those cortions of the acclimation which concern safety and shall acolv the critpria set forth in sec. 52.59 of this subcart.
\
Sec. 52.59 Criteria for renewal.
(a) The Commission shall issue a rule granting the renewal if the design, either as originally certified or as modified l
during the rulemaking on the renewal, complies with the Atomic Energy Act an? the Commission's regulations and-erders acclicable and in effect at the time of the renewal and-technseatty-relevant te-the-design, and any other requirements mere-stringent-safety
. _ - -- -_ ___ _a
o 1
42 requirements the Commission may wish to impose after a determination that there is a substantial increase in overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the mere-stringent naw requirements and that the direct and indirect costs of .
implement'ation of those requirements are justified in view of this increased protection.
(b) Denial of renewal does not bar the header-ef-the-design certification acolicant, or another applicantt from filing a new application for certification of the designt which proposes design changes which correct the deficiencies cited in the denial of the renewal. .
Sec. 52.61 Duration of renewal.
Each renewal of certification for a standard design will be for not less than five nor more than ten years.
Sec. 52.63 Finality of standard desian certifications.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any provision in 10 CFR 50.109, i during-the-initiat-persed-in-whieh-a-design-eertificatsen-issued under-this-subpart while a standard desian certification is in effect under sec. 52.55 or 52.61 of this subcart, the Commission
43
\
l may not impose mere-stringent-safety ngw requirements on the certification, whether en its own motion, or in resconse to a cetition from any cerson. unless the Commission determines in a notice and comment rulemaking either that significant-new information-shows-that a modification is necessary either to .
bring the certification or the referencing plants into compliance i with the Commission's regulations and-erders acolicable and in e'ffect at the time the certification was issued, or that-a modificatsen-is-necessary to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
fat--Similartyr-notwithstanding-any-previsien-in-te-eFR 50-1997-during-any-renewah-persed-in-whieh-a-design-eertificatien issued-un' der-this-Subpart-is-in-effeety-the-eemmissien-may-net impese-mers-stringent-safety-requirements-en-the-eertiffeation untess-the-eemmissien-determines-in-a-rulemaking-esther-that significant-new-information-shows-that-a-medificatien-is necessary-te-bring-the-eertificatien-er-the-referencing-plants inte-cemptience-with-the-eemmissien4s-regulatsens-and-erders-in effeet-at-the-time-the-eertificatien-was-renewed7 -er-that-a modification-is-neesssary-te-assure-adequate-pretectien-ef-the ,
1 pubtie-heal th-and-safety-er-the-eemmen-defense-and-securityr l
(92) Any modification the NRC imposes on a design certification rule under paragraphs (a) (1) and-fatfet of..this section will be applied to all plants referencing the certified design, except those to which the modification has been rendered i
L l'
l l . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
44 l
technically irrelevant by action taken under caracraoh (3) or (4) of this subsection, or subsection (b) of this section. enty-in accordance-with-the-requirements-ef-10-eFR-50rt99.
(by--The-header-ef-a-standard-design-eertificatien-issued under-this-Sabpart-may-file-a-request-for-en-amendment-te-the ,
design-eertificatsen-by-way-ef-netice-and-cemment-rutemakingr The-Gemmissien-shall-grant-the-amendment-request-if-st-determines that-the-amendment-witt-eempty-with-the-Atomie-Energy-Aet-and-the eemmissien's-regulatsensv--The-amendment-with-be-applied-te-at}
plants-referencing-the-design-enty-if-the-amendment-is-necessary fer-adequate-preteetien-of-the-pubtie-health-and-safety-er-the eemmen-defense-and-securityr--Any-ether-amendment-wika-apply-enty te-plants-referencing'the-design-after-the-amendment-is-granted; (3) While a desian certification is in effect under sec.
52.55 or sec. 52.61 of this subcart, unless special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are cresent, the Commission will not impose riew requirements by olant-soecific order on any cart of the desian of a soecific olant referencing the desian certification if that cart was aceroved in the desian certification.
(4) Exceot as orovided in 10 CFR 2.758. in makina the findinas recuired for issuance of a combined license or operatina license, or for any hearina under sec. 52.103 of this cart, the Commission shall treat as resolved th'ese matters resolved in
. . l 45 connection with the issuance or renewal of a desian certification.
(ek)111 An applicant.for an operdting license, or combined license, or a licensee whose license references a certified j standard design certification issued under this subpart, may .
request an exemption from one or more elements of'the design certification. The Commission shalt BAY grant such a request only if it determines that the exemption will comply with the l Atemie-Energy-Aety-the-Gemmissien's-regulatsensy-and-the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). In addition to the factors listed in sec. 50.12(a), the commission shall consider whether the soecial circumstances which sec. 50.12(a)(2) recuires to be cresent outweich any decrease in safety that may result from the j
reduction in standardiz,ation caused by the exemotion. The )
arantina of an exemotion on reauest of an acclicant shall be subiect to litication in the same manner as other issues in the coeratina license or combined license hearina. Exemptiens-apply enty-te-the-ticense-fer-whieh-the-exemptien-was-requested; j (d2) The licensee of a plant built according to a i
standardized design may make a change to the standardized portion of the plant, without prior commission approval, only if the change does not involve changes to the design as described in the i rule certifying the design, or in the certifying rule together with any exemption which may have been granted the licensee under ,
d seer-5Br69fet caraar'ach (1) of this subsection. i
a . 1 a
46 I 1
SUBPART C - COMBINED LICENSES Sec. 52.71 Scoce of subcart.
- 1 This subpart. sets out the requirements and procedures .
applicable to commission issuance of combined eenstruction permits-and-cenditionat-operating licenses fueembined-ticensesu p for nuclear power facilities.
Sec. 52.73 Relationship to Subcarts A and B.
An application for a combined license under this subpart may, but need not, reference a standard design certification issued under Subpart B of this part or an early site permit issued under Subpart A of this part. or both.
Sec. 52.75 Filina of acolications.
Any person except one excluded by 10 CFR 50.38 may, file an application for a combined license for a nuclear power facility with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The applicant shall comply with the fiking requirements of 10 CFR 50.4 and ,
1 50a 30(a) and (b)t_exccot for caraaraoh (b)(6), as they would j apply to an application for a nuclear power plant construction permit. The fees associated with the filing and review of the l
l l
47 application are set out in 10 CFR Part 170. (The rest of this section now appears in 52.79(a).]
Sec. 52.77 Contants of acclicationar ceneral information.
The application shall contain all of the information required by 10 CFR 50.33, as that section would acolv to an aoolicant for a construction oermit or an coeratina license, and '
10 CFR 50.33a as these that sections would apply to an applicant I for a nuclear power plant construction permit. In particular, the applicant shall comply with the requirement of sec. 50.33a(b) regarding'the submission of antitrust information.
Sec. 52.79 Contents of acolications; technical information.
(eg)Ill In eeneral. Elf the application references an early site permit, the application must-demonstrate-the-suitability-ed the-site-fer-the-design-and-must-discuss need not contain such information or analyses as have been submitted to the Commission in connection with the early site oermit , but shall contain, in' addition to the information and analyses otherwise recuired. ,
information sufficient to demonstrate that the desian of the facility falls within the carameters soecified in the early site permit, and to resolve any other significant environmental issue I,
48 not considered in any previous proceeding on the site,or the d
design.
(The next two sentences are from 52.75 of the proposed 121 rule:] If the acclimation does not reference an early site ,
l oermit. Tthe applicant shall comolv with th'e requirements of 10 .
~
CFR 50.30(f) by includeine with the acclimation an environmental report orecared in accordance with the orovisions of Subcart A of
10 CFR Part 51. with-the-application-if-it-dees-net-reference-an early-site-permstr ill If the application does not reference an early site permit which contains a site redress clan as described in sec.
52.17(c) of this cart, and if the acclicant wishes to be able to.
perform the activities at the site allowed by 10 CFR 30.10(e)(1),
then the application shall contain the information required by sec. 52.17(c) of this partz en-redress-ef-the-site-in-the-event that-the-activities-permitted-by-seer-SEv9tfat-ef-this-subpart are-performedr (ah) The application must contain the technically relevant, information recuired of acclicants for an operatina license finat safety-analysis-repert-required by 10 CFR 50.34fbt. The final safety analysis report and other recuired information may incorporate by reference the final safety analysis report for a certified standard design 2 7-but-must-be-supplemented-te a
inetude7-as-appreprinter-the-information-required-ef-applicants fer-eperating-ticenses-by-10-EFR-Part-Ser In particular, an i
+ .
49 application referencing a certified design must describe those portions of the design which are site-specific, such as the service water intake structure er add the ultimate heat sink. An application r,eferencing a certified design must also demonstrate compliance with the interface requirements established for the .
design under sec. 52.47(da)I11 of this part. If the application does not reference a certified design, the application must comply with the requirements of sec. 52.47(a)(2) of this part for level of design information, and shall contain the technical i
information required by secs. 52. 47 (a) (1) (ii . (ii), (iv). and 1
(v). and (3), 59749fbtf9t-and-f9)7 and, if the design is modular, 52.47(ek)121 The-apptientien-must-akse-inetude-prepesed technicat-specifications-prepared-in-aeeerdance-with-the ;
requirements-ef-te-eFR-Part-Ser (bs) The application for a combined license must include the proposed inspections 7 tests, inspections, and analyses which the 1
licensee shall perform and the acceptance criteria therefor which !
are necessary and sufficient to with provide reasonable assurance that, if the tests. inspections and analyses are cerformed and the acceptance criteria met, the facility has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the combined license.
applientieny-the-previsiens-ef-the-Atomie-Energy-Aety-and-the eemmissien's-regulatsense Where the acclimation references a l certified standard desien, the test, inspections, analyses and accentance criteria contained in the certified desian shall acolv 1
50 l
to those cortions of the facility desian which are covered by the desian certification.
(d) The application must contain emergency plans.which provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at .
the site.
(1) If the acolication references an early site oermit. the acclimation may incorporate by reference emercency olans accroved in connection with the issuance of the oermit.
(2) If the acclimation does not reference an early site oermit, or if no emercency clans were accroved in connection with the issuance of the oermit, fit--Tthe applicant shall make. good faith efforts to obtain certifications by from the respensibte local and State ~ governmental agencies with emeraency olannine !
responsibilities thatt (i) that Tthe proposed emergency plans are practicable t (ii) that Tahese agencies are committed to participating in any further development of the plans, including any required field demonstrations and (iii) that Tthese agencies are committed to executing their responsibilities under the plana in the event of an emergency. fet The application must contain any certifications that have been obtained. If these certifications cannot be obtained, the application must contain information, includina a utility olan, sufficient to show demonstrate that the proposed plans nonetheless provide l
~ reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can I
.. . , )
- '51
,4 and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the ;
site.
(3) If the acclimation references an early site normit I which contains emercancy elannina marameters, the carameters -
shall anolv. ,
Sec. 52.81 Standards for review of aeolications.
' Applications filed under this subpart will be reviewed according tor-as-appropriate the pertinent standards. set out in 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices and Part 100 as they apply to applications for construction permits and,'perating o licenses for
. nuclear power plants, and as those standards are technically ,
. I relevant to the desian crocosed for the facility.. i Sec. 52.83 Aeolicability of Part 50 Provisions.
Unless otherwise specifically provided in this subpart, all provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices applicable to holders of construction permits for nuclear power reactors also apply to holders of combined licenses issued under this subpart.
Similarly, all provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices applicable to holders of operating licenses also apply to holders of combined licenses issued under this subpart.*ence the Commission has made the findinas recuired under sec. 52.103 of
52-this subcart, whe-have-te-received-written-authoriention-for- 2 fatt-power-operatien-under-seer-59,199 crovided that, as anelled to a combined license. 10 CFR 50.51'shall recuire that the initi'al duration of the license shall not exceed 40 vaars'from the date on which the Commission makes the findinas reauired .
under sec. 52.103 of this subcart. However, any limitations ;
contained in Part 50 regarding applicability of the provisions to certain classes of facilities continue ~to apply.
Sec. 52.85 Administrative review of acclications.
. A croceedina on a combined license is subject to all ,
applicable procedural requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 2, including the req Lrments for docketing (sec. 2.101) and issuance of a notice of hearing'(sec. 2.104). All hearings on combined licenses are governed by the procedures contained in Part 2 Subcart G.
Sec. 52.87 Referral to the ACRS.
The Commission shall ferward refer a coev of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS shall review recort on those cortions of the application which concern safety and shall acolv the criteria set forth in sec. 52.81 of this suboart. in accordance with the finality e
. 53 orovisions of this eart. and-repert-its-ftadings-and l reeemmendatiens-te-the-eemmissient--The-AeRS-need-net-recensider ;
I issues-en-whieh-it-has-made-findings-and-recommendattens-tn-any '
earlier-review-ef-the-site-er-the-design-whieh-is-the-subie'et-ef i
the-application .
i Sec. 52.89 Environmental review.
~ l If the application references an early site permit or a certified standard design, the environmental review must focus on whether the desian of the facility falls within the carameters snecified'in the early site eermit the-sus.tability-ef-the-site i fer-the-design and any other s'ignificant envir'onmental issue not considered in any previous proceeding on the site'or the design.
The-results-ef-this-timited-review-must-be-presented-at-the hearing-en-the-applicat enr--Heweverr-the-eemmissten-may-nee modify-any-finet-determination-en-en-issue-that-has-been eensidered-and-decided-in-any-earlier-preceeding-en-the referenced-stte-er-design 7-except-as-previded-in-seeragez-5 erb 9 and-59r69-regarding-finality-ef-earty-site-permit-determinations and-final 2ty-ef-standard-design-eertificatiens7-respectively If the application does not reference an early site permit or a k
certified standard design, alt-ef the environmental review procedures set out in 10 CFR Part 51 shall be followed, including i
. 54 .
the issuance of a final environmental impact statement. but i
excludina the issuance of a sucolement under sec. 51.95(a). j I
Sec. 52.91 Authorization to conduct site activities.
(a)lil If the application references an early site permit which contains a site redress clan as described in sec. 52.17(c) of this cart, the applicant is authorized by sec. 52.25 of this cart to may perform the site preparation activities autherized-in seer-59res described in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). after-the apptientien-fer-a-eembined-ticense-has-been-decketede (2) If the.aeolication does notl reference an early site oermit which contains such a redress clan. the acolicant may not cerform the site orecaration activities allowed by sec.
50.10(e)(1) without first submittina a site redress clan in accord with sec. 52. 79 (a) (3) of this subcart and obtainina the secarate authorization recuired by sec. 50.10(e)(1). Such authorization shall be cranted only after the cresidina officer in the croceedina on the acclimation has made the findinas and determination recuired by sec. 50.10(e)(2) and has determined that the site redress clan meets the criteria in sec. 52.17(c) of this cart. Otherwise--the-applicant-shatt-request-autherseation te-eenduet-site-preparation-activities-pursuant-te-10-GFR serteferfly-and-feyr 3
" ~
. 55 121 fe-either-easer-authorization to conduct the activities described in 10 CFR 50.10(e) (3) (i) may be granted only <
after the presiding officer in the combined license proceeding makes the additional finding required by 10 CFR 50.10(e) (3) (ii) .
(b) If, after an applicant for a combined license has ,
performed the activities permitted by paragraph subsection (a) of this section, the application for the license is withdrawn or denied, and the early site permit referenced by the application expirest er-the-header-ef-the-earty-site permit-se-requests- then the applicant shall redress the site in accord with the terms of the site redress plant required-by-seer-5Ert9fbtv If, before redress is complete, a use not envisaged in the redress plan is found for the. site or parts thereof, the applicant .shall carry -
out the redress plan to the greatest extent possible consistent with the alternate use.
Sec. 52.93 Exemotions and variances.
(a) Applicants for a combined license under this subpart, or any amendment to a combined license, may include in the application a request, under 10 CFR 50.12, for an exemption from one or more of the Commission's regulations, including any part of a design certification rule., The Commission shall grant such a request if it determines that the exemption will comply with
_ __ _--_ __m__-_______.-.a_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . . - _ . _ _ __ _ - _ _ - _ __ ___-_
J
, 56' j
.q H
the-Atomie-Energy-Aety-the-eemmissienAs-regulations 7-and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a).
(b) An applicant for a combined' license, or any amendment' to a' combined license, who has filed an application referencing an early site permit issued under this subpart may include.in the ,.
application a request for a variance from one or more elements of the permit In determining whether to grantsthe variance, the Commission shall amelv the same technically relevant criteria as were aeolicable to the acclimation for the oricinal or renewed site carmit. ' Issuance of the variance shall be subiect to litiaation durine the combined license croceedina in the same manner as other issues material to that eroceedina. witt-be.
e
.l guided-by-the-eensideratiens-set-ferth-in-te-eFR-50v997-which '
guide-the-eemmissien's-determinations-en-applientions-for l J
amendments-te-eenstructien-permitsv !
Soc. 52.97 Issuance of combined licenses. ,
I (a) The Commission may shall issue a combined license for a nuclear power facility upon finding that the applicable requirements of secs. 50.40, 50.42, 50.43, 50.47, and 50.50 have been met, and that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and the Commission's regulations.
l
. 57 (b) The commission shall identify in the license the inspections tests, inspections, and analyses that the licensee shall perform and the acceptance criteria therefor which gra necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance thatt _11 the tests, inspections, and analyses are nerformed and the ,
accentance criteria met, the facility has been constructed and i I
will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions j of the Atomic Energy Act, and the Commission's regulations. )
'I Sec. 52.99 Inseection durina construction.
After issuance of a combined license, the eemmissien HEs j staff shall assure through that the recuired inspections, tests, f 1
an'd analyses are cerformed and.that eenstructien-ef-the-facility is-eempleted-in-cenfermity-with-the-eembined-ticenser-the previsiens-ef-the-Atemie-Energy-Aet--and-the-eemmissien's {
l regulatsens; the crescribed acceetance criteria are met. The
{
eemmissien-shalt-apply-te-headers-ef-combined-ticenses-the-same inspectien-pregram-applied-te-headers-ef-nuetear-pewer-plant eenstruehsen-permitsr Holders of combined licenses shall comply l i
with the provisions of secs. 50.70 and 50.71. At accrocriate intervals durinc construction, the NRC staff shall oublish in the Federal Recister notices of the successful coreletion of inspections, tests,'and analyses. l t
l
- - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O 58
. .L Sec. 52.101 Pre-operational antitrust review.
Prier-te-eenversien-ef-a-combined-t'ieense-te-en-eperating tieensey If, before the Commission makes the findinas recuired under sec. 52.103 of this subcart, the Commission, after ,
consultation with the Attorney General. NRe-staff-shatt-cenduet en-antitrust-review-pursuant-to-seer-50r4Efby-te determineg whether that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous .
review by the Attorney General and the Commission in connection with the issuance of the combined licensetr--Ef-the-eemmission determines-that-significant-changes-have-eeeurred7 the antitrust review required by sgection 105c(ta) of the Atomic Energy Act must be completed prior to commencement of commercial operation of the facility. Upon completion of this review 7-and-fettewing receipt-ef-the-advice-ef-the-Atterney-Generaty the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may impose any additional license conditions needed-te-avoid-eresting-er-maintaining-a-situation ineenststent-with-the-antitrust-taws-as-specified-in an authorized by sgection 105ag of the Atomic Energy Act.
- b a
- C i
, 59 !
, . 4 Sec. 52.103 hytherizatien-te-eocerateien under a combined license.
I fat--Before-the-faestity-may-eperater-the-header-ef-the eembined-ticense-must-apply-fer-autherisatsen-of-eperation-under i
the-eembined-ticenser--Ef-the-eembined-ticense-is-for-a-modutar l designy-each-meduke-is-the-subieet-of-a-separate-authertestient The-Gemmissien-shalt-publish-a-netice-ef-the-prepesed autherientien-in-the-Federat-Register-under-te-OFR-Ert05r--Within 30-daysy-any-persen-whose-interests-may-be-affected-may-request-a hearing-en-the-basis-estherfar-that-there-has-been-a l
neneenfermance-with-the-ticensey-the-ticensee's-written :
, commitments-the-Atemie-Energy-Aety-er-the-Gemmissien4s regulatsens-and-erdersr-which-has-net-been-eerrected-and-which i ceutd-matersatty-and-edversety-affeet-the-safe-eperation-ef-the j l
facilityt-er-fat-that-significant-new-information-shews-that-seme j modification-te-the-site-er-the-design-is-necessary-te-assure )
i adequate-pretectien-ef-pubtie-health-and-safety-er-the-eemmen j l
defense-and-securityr--The-petitiener-shath-set-ferth-with reas onable-spee s fie t ty-the-f a cts-and-arguments-whieh- f e rm- the basis-fer-the-requestr (ht--Ef-a-hearing-is-net-requestedy-er-if-att-requests-are denied7-the-eemmissien-may-autherine-eperstien-under-the-eembined tieenser-as-previded-in-seer-Ser56 7 -upon-making-the-findings-in eser-50v597 l
1
- 60
- j 1
(ai' Not less than 180 days before loadina of fuel into the reactor, the holder of the combined license shall, in writina, notify the Commission'of the eroected dates of both fuel loadina and criticality. The Commission shall oublish notice-of these-dates in the Federal Reaister. The Federal Reaister notice shall ,
also advise eersons whose interests may be affected by facility ) 1 oceration of their richts under subsection (b) of this section.
{
(b)(1) Not later than 60 days after publication of the notice recuired by subsection (a), any cerson whose' interest may l be affected by facility oeeration may file one or both of the i i
followina in writina: !
' i
~
(i) A cetition which shows, crima facie, that one or more of the acceetance criteria in the combined license have not been met and, as a result, there is acod cause to modify or orchibit :
-f oceration; or (ii) A cetition to modify the terms and conditions of the combined' license.
(2)(1) A coed cause cetition filed }Lnder caracraoh (b)(1)(1) will be cranted by the Commission only if it includes, or clearly references, official NRC documents, documents erecared by or for the combined license holder, or evidence admissible in a croceedina under Subcart G of Part 2, which show, crima facie, that the acceetance criteria have not been met. The combined [
license holder and NRC staff may file answers to the cetition within the time seecified in 10 CFR 2.730 for answers to motioris 6
61 by carties and staff. If the Commission in its iudament decides, on the basis of the cetitions and any answers thereto, that the cetition meets the requirements of this caracraoh, that the issues raised by the cetition are not exemet from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 554 (a) (3) , that cenuine issues of material fact .
are raised, and that settlement or other informal resolution of the issues is not oossible, then the cenuine issues of material fact raised by the cetition shall be resolved in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554, 556, and 557. In such cases, the notice of hearina from the Commission shall seecify the crocedures to be followed, which may, but need not, include some or all of the crocedures in Subeart G of Part 2. Matters exemet from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 5 54 ( a i -( 3 ) mavebe decided by t'he Commission sole v on the basis of the showina of coed cause and any reseensive cleadinas.
(ii) A cetition to modify the terms and conditions of the combined license will be crocessed in accord with 10 CFR 2.206.
The Director shall crant or deny the cetition before the licensed activity alleaedly affected by the eetition (fuel loadina, low cower testina, etc.) commences. If the cetition is eranted, then an order to modify the combined license will be issued oursuant to 10 CFR 2.204. Fuel loadina and ocetation under the combined license will not be affected by the arantina of the cetition unless the order to modify is made immediately effective cursuant l a to 10 CFR 2.204.
l
62 ,
(c) Prior to fuel loadina, the Commission shall find that the accentance criteria in the combined license have been met and that, accordinalv, the facility has been constructed and will
' oeerate in conformity with the Atomic Enerav Act and the Commission's regulations. If the combined license is for a .
modular desian, each reactor module may recuire'a secarate findina as construction croceeds. If accrocriate, the Commission may also make secarate findinas for eurcoses of fuel loadina, criticality, low cower testina, or any other discrete chase of reactor coeration.
O I
I i
l l l !
! j
<. e l
s c 1 i,
l v
~
Attachment 3 g 9 8 4
-m ~~
0 0
0 4
9 m,em.- .+a. -+ =# = * ^-
'~
NUCLEAR REGULAiURUCOMMISSION d i W M 'G{'
, $ ol ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
, c, f cash WGTON. D. C. 20666 .
January'19, 1989 ,ye p '
+
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairinan ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECTr- DRAFT FINAL RULE ON STANDARDIZATION AND LICENSING REFORM, ;
10 CFR PART 52, "EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" During the 345th meeting of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safe-guards, January 12-14, 1989, we reviewed the Draft Final Rule on Stan-dardization . and Licensing Reform transmitted January 4, 1989, which would provide for early . site permits, standard design certifications, !
- ' and combined licenses for huclear power plants. We had the benefit of b'riefings by' the NRC staff > during a , meeting of our Subcommittee on
'Impro'ved LWRs on January 10, 1989 and during the full Comittee meeting. .
We also .had the benefit of the document referenced.' .The ACRS provided coments en this subject in reports of August 12, 1986, October 15, 1986, and June 9, 1988.
Since we have not yet seen the final version of .the Draft Final Rule, the public coments, or the Statement of Considerations, our coments below may be subject to revision or amplification after we have seen the i final version of these documents. l We recomend that the various types of designs be named and defined more i clearly than in the proposed rule. We suggest the following: i
/
. Improved LWR Designs - for LWR plant designs that contain improve-ments beyond those designs of LWR plants licensed for construction l
. prior to the effective date of this rule. j
. Advanced LWR Designs - for LWR plant designs that differ signifi- l '
cantly from improved LWR designs or use simplified inherent pas-sive, or other innovative means to accomplish safety functions to an extent significantly greater than in improved LWR designs.
. Advanced Non-LWR Designs - for advanced plant designs using other than light water as moderator or coolant.
The information required for desig'n certification is identified in Section 52.47(a).(2). This section includes a requirement for the 1
- - ' ~ - - ' - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -~-----
f' o '-'-7 1 s The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. January 19, 1989 submittal of information sufficiently detailed to permit the preparation of procurement specifications and construction and installation specifi- ,
cations. The staff's review of this material can be perfomed most efficiently and with greater understanding if this large body of infor-mation is available in final form, i.e., the procurement specifications and the construction and installation specifications. We recomend that "
the rule be expanded to require submittal of these documents. .
The references in Part 52 to the responsibility of- ACRS for review '
should be made consistent with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
We will continue to follow and review the development of this rule along with the Statement of Considerations and advise you accordingly.
Sincerely, rest J. Remick '
Chairman Reference . .
Memorandum dated January 4, 1989 from Steven .Crockett, Office of the General Counsel, NRC, to Herman. Aldeman, ACRS, transmitting Draft Final Rule on Standardization and Licensing Reform
\ .
9 4
e
- - _ - _ _ . . _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ______